Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) — Santa Clarita City Council, July 14, 2026 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
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
MAY 2025

INTERNATIONAL
SANTA
A
oPrs
Michael Baker
75 DECEM®**
This page intentionally left blank.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 1 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ..............................................11 B. DETERMINATION: ..............................................................................................................11 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................12 I. AESTHETICS .....................................................................................................................12 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ..................................................................14 III. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................28 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................37 VI. ENERGY ..........................................................................................................................41 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................................46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................53 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................62 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................68 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................................76 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................77 XIII. NOISE ............................................................................................................................79 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................................86 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................87 XVI. RECREATION ...............................................................................................................90 XVII. TRANSPORTATION .....................................................................................................92 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................94 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...........................................................................96 XX. WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................99 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................ 102

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES
Table III-1 SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Thresholds of Significance ............ 21 Table III-2 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................ 21 Table III-3 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions ................................................... 22 Table III-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions .................................................................. 23 Table IV-1 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover ....................................................................... 30 Table VI-1 Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies .......... 45 Table VIII-1 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ............................................. 55 Table VIII-2 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan ............................................................... 56 Table VIII-3 Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 .................................................................. 59 Table XIII-1 Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements ...................................................... 81 Table XIII-2 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors .............................................. 82 Table XIII-3 Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors ................................ 84

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B – Biological Resources Technical Report
Appendix C – Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report Appendix D – Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E – Geotechnical Report
Appendix F – Hydrology Study
Appendix G – Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix H – Assembly Bill 52 Documentation
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master
Case Number:

Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
Lead Agency Name
and Address:

City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact Person and
Phone Number:

Amber Rodriguez
Management Analyst
(661) 284-1414
[email protected]
Project Location: The Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (proposed Project) would be located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City) and a portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County (County) on an approximately 380-acre Project Site. The Project Site is comprised of nine parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 2813-010-273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010-275, 2813-010-276, 2813-010-900, 2813-010-901, 2813-010- 902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901). The western portion of the Project Site is located in the Haskell Canyon Open Space area within City boundaries on APNs 2813-010-900, and 2813-010-901, and a portion of 3244-031-901 and 2813-010-902. The eastern portion of the Project Site is located within unincorporated County boundaries on APNs 2813-010- 273, 2813-010-274, 2813-010-275, 2813-010-276, and 2813-025-270.

The entire Project Site is owned by the City.

The Project Site is bounded by the Angeles National Forest to the north; Haskell Open Space, residential uses, and Copper Hill Road to the south; open space, Cesar Milan’s Dog Psychology Center, and the Blue Cloud Movie Ranch to the east; and open space, a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) transmission corridor, and Pettinger Canyon Road/Forest Route 4N28 to the west. As shown in Figure 1, primary regional access to the Project Site is provided by California State Route (SR) 14, which is located approximately 7 miles to the south. As shown in Figure 2, primary vehicular access to the Project Site is from Pettinger Canyon Road/Forest Route 5N28. Blue Cloud Road would provide access to the eastern portion of the Project Site.

Applicant’s Name
and Address:

City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
s’NTAc, s‘ —Me. s o
TM
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 General Plan
Designation and
Zoning:

The western portion of the Project Site within the City and is designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan and zoned Open Space (OS).1 Per Santa Clarita General Plan and Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section

17.36.010, the OS designation is intended to identify and reserve land for passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use. Typical uses include recreation, trails, trailheads, paseos, horticulture, limited agriculture, animal grazing, and habitat preservation. Public parks are permitted byright within the OS zone.

The eastern portion of the Project Site is within the County and is designated as Rural Land 10 (RL10) and zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2- 2). According to the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, the purpose of the RL10 designation is to allow for single family residences, equestrian and animal uses, and agricultural and related activities. Per the Los Angeles County Municipal Code (LACMC) Section 22.16.010, the Agricultural Zones (Zones A-1 and A-2) are established to permit a comprehensive range of agricultural uses in areas particularly suited for agricultural activities. Permitted uses are intended to encourage agricultural activities and other such uses required for, or desired by, the inhabitants of the community. Low-density single-family residential development, outdoor recreational uses, and public and institutional facilities may be permitted.

Description of
Project and Setting:

The following subsections describe the proposed Project and the Project setting.

Existing Conditions
The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped except for several LADWP transmission towers and dirt access paths/trails. The Project Site is primarily covered in vegetation, including black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chaparral, and non-native grass. The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent to 100 percent. The Project Site is at an elevation range of approximately 1,450 to 1,920 feet above mean sea level.

Proposed Project
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 (Figure 3). 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. 1 City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City https://maps.santa-clarita.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=4b3cfb271314475db6518999b4747876.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 Haskell Bike Park Core
The proposed 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.

Blue Cloud Trailhead
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.

Other Project Features
The Project would include two cargo containers, located in the Haskell Core, which would be used as storage sheds. No utility connections for water, wastewater, or lighting are proposed.

Operation
The proposed Project would operate from dawn to dusk daily. No motorized bikes would be allowed within the Project Site except for pedal assist electric bikes. On weekdays, the proposed Project would have a maximum of 80 visitors2 and 20 vehicles. It is anticipated that the majority of weekday visitors would ride their bikes to the Project Site. On weekends, this would increase to a maximum of 180 visitors and 100 vehicles. Full- and part-time staff and volunteers would provide daily and monthly trail maintenance. Daily maintenance would consist of compaction of the trails with hand tools and hand watering, with the expectation that trails would be revegetated over time to minimize erosion. Equipment for monthly maintenance would include maintenance vehicles such as a John Deere Gator, pickup trucks, and a mini excavator/dozer. Additionally, the vault restrooms would be serviced by a septic removal truck weekly.

The proposed Project would also host approximately 20 weekday events and 6 weekend events per year. Weekday events would include 10 events for high school teams and 10 Thursday race Summer Series events. Weekend events would include City-sponsored racing. For high school events, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a maximum of 40 visitors and generate a maximum of 20 vehicle. It is anticipated that most of the high school competitors would ride their bikes from their respective schools to the Project Site. For the weekend and Thursday race Summer Series events, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a maximum of 250 visitors and generate a maximum of 100 vehicles. Event days would include the operation of a generator for food trucks and music and additional staff/volunteers. 2 For the purposes of this document, visitors include riders, spectators, full- and part-time staff, and volunteers. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 Anticipated Construction Schedule
Construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to commence in July 2025 and to be finished in December 2025. The proposed trails would be constructed with a mini-excavator and stand-behind trail dozer. The trail widths would be 4 to 6 feet wide, and any excess soils would be used to create the trail alignments. The bike courses would require concrete footers and excavation up to four feet for the footers. Other equipment required for construction would include a skip loader, gator, pick-up trucks, water truck, water buffalo, dump truck, and cement truck. No demolition or tree removal would occur. Native plants would be used for landscaping. A total of approximately 20 acres would be disturbed. The proposed Project would use decomposed granite for most of its proposed hard surfaces, such as for the parking lot, access road/driveways, and bike trails. The only impervious areas for the proposed Project would be for the proposed ADA parking spots and the two pump tracks (beginner and intermediate).

Surrounding Land
Uses:

Surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include open space uses to the north, south, east, and west. Commercial uses also exist along the southeastern (Cesar Milan’s Dog Psychology Center) and northwestern (Veluzat Movie Ranch) portion of the Project Site. Further west, across Pettinger Canyon Road are single-family residential uses.

Other Public
Agencies whose
Approval is
Required:

As discussed below in Section IV, Biological Resources, there are aquatic features on the Project Site that may be under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Upon determination of jurisdictional limits, permits from these agencies may be required.

California Native
American
Consultation
Have California
Native American
tribes traditionally and
culturally affiliated
with the project area
requested
consultation pursuant
to Public Resources
Code section
21080.3.1?
Yes, the City has conducted consultation. Refer to the discussion under Checklist Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources.

LEGEND

PROJECT SITE

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

ANGELES

NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT SITE
PETT NI GER CANYON ROAD/FOREST ROUTE 5N28PETT NI GER CANYON ROAD/FOREST ROUTE 5N28

BLUE CLOUD RD BLUE CLOUD RD

HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Figure 1
Regional Location Map NOT TO SCALE
04/2025 • JN 195477
Source: Google Earth Pro, April 2025
2e
s “
f.
-9,
2 Want r
r.
goetac). 6
h 2 iauri
wd.
2 JM."9
% 1
-
yene
wet
Us
WY
1 5
peg
4"
/ \
aoa W Wp
2409—==4a ■
W 2s,
■ Oell
U . vo
C
-
v.
97 3
C
% N
W
d
"Efhee
teses
.9
%1
1 \\
( r
mi MS
?3l n
/."
PD
n
W
3 9
5 -
At ii
F24 X -
a
C serav P
9 : 8
ng -d
frs MyI
—e Jhhe ehs Jn -l 43 UUn —
i 1o. l S Lelstste
N ( %
A
4 «
Wh
W
N
N 6 P. 2
GI.
—
sl
Cal vall;
(
I
11 a .
r
" all
Iw
1 ye
- AAhA i 4 1
r
21 {
y
ClE
□
Fi J
.5 24 2de e
24 INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker C
y“I
are
/
A
dsst
&
This page intentionally left blank.

Source: Google Earth Pro, April 2025
Figure 2
Project Location Map NOT TO SCALE
04/2025 • JN 195477

PROJECT SITE
City of Santa Clarita
County of Los Angeles

HASKELL OPEN SPACE

ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST

PETTINGER CANYON ROAD/FOREST ROUTE
5N28

BLUE CLOUD RDBLUE CLOUD RD

HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
K t
s
M =
£ wet )
G

7. sy -
6 As ■ y t i
in s g j
G 17
73 *• di i
■
t
Gs ►7
"is
-
i* 1g 1
►
ad Wal )
\
•w 3 eveC
— w. T
? s
..

EC ee .
________

INTERNATIONAL
C
-S7
Michael Baker
t*
o.
>r
i
eis
344 2 eg1.
/Lth
ate
1r AP
e
(410s.

X asSy,
y
y"8
I
K &By.

A * S AA '
au.e
4 i / ‘
bjep.
(W56
i
r t .

AI t ee
■ y ■ PeE. $44 . - K s
mea hsiant

6..
__________________
,17
■ W -
r .44 Y
3 This page intentionally left blank.

Source: Avid Trails and Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. 2025 Figure 3
Overall Trails Plan NOT TO SCALE
04/2025 • JN 195477

HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
100 1000
1 r — A —
D • nolest.
□ t
0 hat

1.600 ag
a. yad( tico I TAU.
a
60 a •/
wy
IP o to Sees I
I iw. Sf p 7 -- i
I
——--------------- ----- s
PROJECT AREA (380 AC) —J o-' ale St, a □
d
- □
a
!
Iwyrf I" .
□ 67 •. os
G
.. tl ■ Ge
ve ., Pass “nttask
I
V sts” s caalsc. a
00---
‘ 7 Spro

7. - 3 ee
X
ro
misn Bafai
005 -
1000
t “oe 0 s’s
As nee a
ael
ay I ■ sco
___ .
t $
_ -

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker
□
r
___
y
I
I
I
se.

Trails Plan by Ability
— Perimeter Trail
— Beginner Multi-Use Trail
— Beginner Multi-use Trail (Existing)
-- Intermediate Multi-use Trail
--- Intermediate Multi-use Trail (Existing)
• Beginner Downhill Bike Trail
© Intermediate Downhill Bike Trail
© Expert Downhill Bike Trail
Streams (MBI)
• Non-Wetland WoS
Sheetflow
TOB
• Vegetated Streambed
eii. j e os 3
e
________
J
Legend
• Peaks
Boundaries
• e Boundary —= Parcels |
Contours
WO’Contours
100 Contours
Trail Amenities
1 Traiheed
• Trat Hub
O Start Mound
E Existing Crossing
A Lookout Point
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
___I
wrhuleWannojw 2
____________
eke. .
r’, (Pt
35)
|
phte < g
e
(
waaJ
e i
'
3 . 4
e(9 si
t J
da
D
V ■ aa ' S,a
S
...
/A.
55 . ■
1 • “oni
l
se
-alal a.)T
seme. ■’
-9 v
5, D
g
D
ors
l y .

POPa.
a
-FPWN).

This page intentionally left blank.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or a “Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture Resources and
Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology /Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology / Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population / Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities / Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature ______________________________________ Date_____5/12/2025_________ Name, Title __Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst_________________________________________ □
KI
□
□
□
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally considered a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements, as defined by local plans or policies. These may include panoramic views that are associated with an urban skyline, valley mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies.

Scenic views and viewsheds are typically defined by physical features that frame the boundaries or context of scenic resources, such as natural open space, topographic formations, landscapes, water bodies, and/or large native trees. A region’s topography can lend aesthetic value through the creation of public view corridors of ridgelines, and through the visual backdrop created by mountains and hillsides. Viewsheds and scenic vistas may include views of both natural and built environments, and are also considered important scenic resources.

The 380-acre Project Site is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills; native and nonnative species such as chaparral, scrub, and grass; and trails. Views of portions of the Project Site are offered from summits on various existing trails throughout the site. Portions of the Project Site are mapped as areas of Ridgeline Preservation,3 which preserve ridgelines within City limits for the public health, safety and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance 3 City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Environmental – Ridgeline Preservation Layer, https://maps.santaclarita.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4b3cfb271314475db6518999b4747876, accessed March 8, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents.4 However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as a shade structure, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the existing visual landscape.

Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines.

Thus, views of the Project Site and within the Project Site would not substantially change, and the proposed Project would preserve the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Project Site is not located along or within a designated state scenic highway.5 The Project Site is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of an Interstate 5 segment that is considered an eligible state scenic highway. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a segment of the Angeles Crest Highway (State Route 2), which is located approximately 22 miles southeast of the Project Site. As such, the Project Site is not visible from designated or eligible state scenic highways. The proposed Project would not require removal of, or impact views of, any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c. In non-urbanized area, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to CEQA Section 21071, an urbanized area is defined as an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons. The City of Santa Clarita has a population of over 220,000 persons.6 However, the Project Site is located in the northern portion of the City in a primarily undeveloped area. Thus, for the purposes of this Checklist Question, the Project Site is considered to be within a non-urbanized area.

The existing visual character of the Project Site is of natural landforms such as hills and native and non-native vegetation. Local roads do not offer views of the entire Project Site. However, portions of the Project Site are visible from summits on various existing trails throughout the site.

The proposed Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of the 380-acre Project Site to construct the trails and supporting facilities. The proposed trails would generally follow the existing grade of the area, and native plants would be used to revegetate any disturbed areas. The activity/programming areas, vault restrooms, and cargo containers within the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead would not be prominent features in the visual landscape. Since minimal disturbance would occur and since the Project is designed to utilize the site’s existing topography and maintain the open-space nature of the site, the Project would not substantially degrade the 4 City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.38.070 RP 5 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis. com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed March 11, 2024. 6 United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, Santa Clarita city, California, Population estimates, July 1, 2022 (V2022), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santaclaritacitycalifornia/PST045223, March 5, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14 existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The Project Site is within an undeveloped area with no existing lighting. The portion of the Project Site within the County is within a Rural Outdoor Lighting District, which promotes and maintains dark skies for the health and enjoyment of individuals and wildlife.7,8 However, the proposed Project does not propose any lighting. Additionally, the proposed Project would operate from dawn to dusk, and thus would not generate any additional light from vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not include any buildings or materials that could generate glare in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur related to light and glare.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources
Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
7 Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, GIS-NET Planning and Zoning Information for Unincorporated L.A. County, https://rpgis.isd.lacounty.gov/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=GISNET_Public.GISNET_Public, accessed March 5, 2024. 8 Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning, Rural Outdoor Lighting District Ordinance, https://planning.lacounty.gov/long-range-planning/rold/#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Outdoor%20Lighting%20District ,enjoyment%20of%20individuals%20and%20wildlife, accessed March 5, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15 In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources
Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No Impact. Based on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the portion of the Project Site located within the City’s boundaries is identified as grazing land, which is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.9 The portion of the Project Site located outside of the City’s boundaries is not mapped by the FMMP, and does not include any farmland. Thus, the Project would not be located on or near Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no agricultural uses or operations occur 9 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed January 29, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not convert Farmland to a non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The portion of the Project Site located within the City’s boundaries is zoned Open Space (OS), which allows passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use, as stated in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010. The OS zoning also permits limited agricultural use related to horticulture, farmer’s markets, keeping of animals, riding trails, and wildlife preserves/sanctuaries. As the Project proposes to construct a mountain bike park, which is an active open space use with trails, the Project would not conflict with the zone’s allowed uses within the City boundaries. The portion of the Project Site located within the County is zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-2-2). However, the Project Site is not currently used for agriculture. Per the LACMC Section 22.16.030, outdoor recreational uses such as riding and hiking trails may be permitted within the A-2-2 zone with a ministerial site plan review. Although the bike park may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review by the County, the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity (see, e.g., Lawler v.

City of Redding (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 778; Government Code sections 53090 and 53091 [local agencies – except for cities and counties - must comply with building and zoning ordinances]).

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, the Project Site is not part of a Williamson Act contract or any other sort of deed or land use restriction intended to preserve or foster agricultural uses.10 Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. As discussed in Checklist Question II.b, the Project Site is zoned OS within the City and A-2-2 within the County, which allows passive, natural and active open space uses, as stated in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010, and outdoor recreational uses, as stated in LACMC Section 22.16.030, respectively. The Project Site is undeveloped and does not include any land zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Project Site include Angeles National Forest, open space, residential uses, commercial uses, and a transmission corridor. While Angeles National Forest and the open space uses that surround the Project Site may consist of forest land and timberland, the proposed Project’s uses are consistent with the allowed uses of the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timberland or cause rezoning of forest or timberland, and no impact would occur.
10 California Department of Conservation, California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/, accessed February 7, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact. As described in response to Checklist Question II.c, the Project Site is undeveloped and does not include forest land. The Project Site is primarily covered in vegetation, including black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chaparral, and non-native grass, and there are no stands or groups of trees within the site that would constitute a forest. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The Project Site does not contain any farmland, and thus, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Additionally, as discussed in Checklist Question II.d, the Project Site does not contain any forest land, and thus, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 Explanation of Checklist Responses
This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).11

AIR POLLUTANTS
Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non-criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions).

The criteria pollutants consist of ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), lead, and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria for setting permissible levels. The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). In addition to the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern.

EXISTING SETTING
The Project Site is located within western Los Angeles County, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin) that includes the non-desert portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties and all of Orange County. The Air Basin is located on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills to the east. Regionally, the Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains to the east forming the inland perimeter. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Air Basin. SCAQMD has divided the Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area.

The Project Site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley, which covers the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest air monitoring station to the Project Site is Santa Clarita Monitoring Station (Santa Clarita Station), which is located approximately 7.4 miles south of the Project Site at 22224 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. However, it should be noted that due to the air 11 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project.” In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project’s construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 monitoring station’s distance from the Project Site, recorded air pollution levels at the Santa Clarita Station reflect, with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the Project Site.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed, the Project Site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is governed by the SCAQMD. The regional plan that applies to the proposed Project is the SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP was adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023. This section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed Project with the 2022 AQMP.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required.

A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? As discussed further in Checklist Question III.b and Checklist Question III.c, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance, as shown in Table III-3 below.

Furthermore, as shown in Table III-4, the ongoing operation of the proposed Project would not generate significant air pollutant emissions on a regional basis based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the air quality standards.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards.

Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. A project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP if it is consistent with the growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP.

The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) and the 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2019 FTIP). The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 (RTP/SCS) is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and staterequirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides longrange planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within southern California. SCAG’s forecasts are based on population, employment, and housing data provided in the general plans of local governments, including the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Los Angeles County General Plan. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with AQMP if it is consistent with City and County General Plans.

The western portion of the Project Site is designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Open Space (OS). The eastern portion of the Project Site is designated as RL10 and zoned A-2-2 in the County’s General Plan. The proposed bike park is an allowed use within the City’s OS land use designation and zoning and the County’s RL10 land use designation and A-2-2 zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the current zoning and land use designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Additionally, the proposed bike park use would not increase population or housing and would generate a minimal number of employees to maintain the park. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed the population, housing, or employment forecasts in the City and County General Plans. As such, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Project Site and would be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an inconsistency with the 2022 AQMP.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the Air Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table III-1. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21 Table III-1
SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC Nox CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Lead
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Local Air Quality
Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As discussed, the Project Site is located in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley. The Look-Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include project site acreage sizes of 1-acre, 2-acres and 5- acres. Although the proposed Project would disturb up to 20 acres, it is unlikely that more than 5 acres would be disturbed in any day. As such, the 5-acre threshold has been utilized in this analysis.

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 (244 meters) from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the Project. As such, the 200-meter thresholds were utilized in order to provide a conservative analysis. Table III-2 below shows the LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.

Table III-2
SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 275 4,608 79 26
Operation 275 4,608 19 7
Notes:
1 The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis.

Source: Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 Construction Emissions
Construction activities for the proposed Project include construction of a bike park. CalEEMod was utilized to calculate the construction-related emissions from the proposed Project.12 The maximum daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project segmented by season and year are shown below in Table III-3.

Table III-3
Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Season and Year of Construction1
Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC Nox CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Summer Maximum
2025 1.17 10.6 13.8 0.02 2.57 0.63
Daily Winter Maximum
2024 3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35
2025 3.47 10.6 13.7 0.02 2.57 0.63
Maximum Daily Construction
Emissions

3.72 36.1 34.1 0.07 8.93 4.35
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds2-- 275 4,608 -- 79 26
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 The CalEEMod model run assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025.

The construction-related criteria pollutant emissions presented in this table represent a conservative scenario because a project’s construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. 2 The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200 meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Table III-3 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to regional and local air quality.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions.

This increase would be due to emissions from the Project-generated vehicle trips, and onsite area source emissions created from the ongoing use of the proposed Project, and the use of off-road equipment for maintenance and event days. The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod.

Based on the modeling, the worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions generated from the proposed Project’s long-term operations are shown in Table III-4.
12 The criteria air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions impacts generated by the proposed Project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.21 CalEEMod is a computer model published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for estimating air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23 Table III-4
Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC Nox CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources1 0.79 0.88 9.43 0.02 2.14 0.55
Area Sources2 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy Usage3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road Equipment4 0.22 2.00 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.06
Total Emissions 1.20 2.88 11.83 0.03 2.21 0.61
SCAQMD Regional Operational
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Operational
Thresholds5 -- 275 4,608 -- 19 7
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. No natural gas would be consumed from operation of the proposed Project.
4 Off-road equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating up to 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off-highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days per year during operation of Project. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site are homes located as near as 800 feet (244 meters) from the areas to be disturbed. The 200-meter thresholds were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5 acres in Air Monitoring Area 13, Santa Clarita Valley.

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Table III-4 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to regional or local air quality.

Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors VOCs and NOx affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating Project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of non-attainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the Project's less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (Brief),13 SCAQMD noted it has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on “speculation” (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk, it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 pounds per day of NOx and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown above in Table III-3, Projectrelated construction activities would generate a maximum of 3.72 pounds per day of VOC and

36.1 pounds per day of NOx, and as shown above in Table III-4, operation of the proposed Project would generate 1.20 pounds per day of VOC and 2.88 pounds per day NOx. The proposed Project would not generate anywhere near these levels of 6,620 pounds per day of NOx or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed Project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed Project’s onsite emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis, the proposed Project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25 Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the state and federal CO standards of 20 parts per million over one hour or 9 parts per million over eight hours.

At the time of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (1993), the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created from the proposed Project and thus, no CO Hotspot modeling was performed.

Cumulative Net Increase in Non-Attainment Pollutants
The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The SCAQMD has published a report14 on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution, which states:
“…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility- wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for projectspecific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.
14 SCAQMD, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution, August 2003.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 In conclusion, the proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and the Project’s incremental operational impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. 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. Local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed Project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations are discussed below, in addition to an analysis of the potential impacts from TAC emissions.

Construction
The construction activities for the proposed Project are anticipated to include construction of a bike park. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant emissions and from TAC emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
As discussed in Checklist Question III.b and Checklist Question III.c, the construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of significance.

Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would create a less than significant constructionrelated impact to local air quality.

Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction
The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk.” “Individual cancer risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30-year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors.

Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27 stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. As of January 2022, 50 percent or more of all contractor’s equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher; by January 2026, 75 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher and by January 2029, 100 percent of all equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. As such, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operation
Operations of the proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations of local CO emission from the Project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local criteria pollutant emissions from onsite operations, and TAC emissions.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. As discussed in Checklist Question III.b and Checklist Question III.c, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to the exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed Project would occur from onsite emission sources such as architectural coatings and landscaping equipment. As discussed in Checklist Question III.b and Checklist Question III.c, operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the local NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to local air quality from onsite emissions.

Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, 27bout 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the operation of the proposed Project that would be primarily limited to weekly water truck deliveries, and the occasional use of diesel fuel to operate generators and off-road equipment, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to TACs.

Based on the analysis above, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 e. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints, and solvents, and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the Project Site’s boundaries. Through compliance with the applicable regulations that reduce odors and due to the transitory nature of construction odors, impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would consist of a bike park development and would not emit any known odors during operation. Therefore, no impact related to odors during operation of the proposed Project would occur.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29 Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or
Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified
on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation
Map?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
This section is based, in part, on the Biological Resources Technical Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report prepared for the Project by Michael Baker International, which are included as Appendix B and Appendix C of this IS/MND, respectively.15
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Biological Resources Technical Report, impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types within the Project Site are limited to active construction or staging areas and areas of proposed trail alignments and are shown below in Table IV-1. Based on the results of the literature review and the field survey, existing site conditions, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions, the native vegetation communities within the Project Site have a moderate or high potential to support three special-status plant species: club-haired mariposa-lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus; California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 4.3), slender mariposalily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; CRPR 1B.2), and short-jointed beavertail (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada; CRPR 1B.2). In addition, these vegetation communities also have a low potential to support three special-status plant species: Nevins barberry (Berberis nevinii; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] Endangered [FE], California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Endangered [SE], CRPR 1B.1), Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae; CRPR

4.2), and island mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides var. blancheae; CRPR 4.3). All remaining special-status plant species identified by the California Natural Diversity Database 15 Note that the field surveys conducted in February 2024 for these reports were for a slightly larger Project Site. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are not expected to occur within the Project Site due to lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent extant occurrences near the Project Site, and/or the Project Site is not within the elevation range of those species.

Table IV-1
Vegetation Communities/Land Cover
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acreage
Black Sage Scrub 3.16
Disturbed Black Sage Scrub 0.35
Scrub Oak Woodland 0.74
Chaparral 18.88
Non-native Grassland 9.97
Developed/Disturbed 2.48
Total 35.58
Source: Michael Baker International; refer to Appendix B.

Permanent direct impacts to special-status plant species may occur during implementation of the proposed Project. Impacts to these species can occur through the loss of counted or estimated individuals, loss of occurrence, loss of occupied habitat, and/or loss of suitable habitat. Indirect impacts to special-status plants may be short-term construction-related impacts or long-term development-related impacts. These impacts could include the accumulation of constructionrelated dust on plants, which may affect their ability to photosynthesize, or the alteration of waterways that may affect plant species that require a source of surface or groundwater to survive. In addition, the introduction of invasive species, pollutants, or hazardous materials may occur during construction and have an indirect impact on any special-status plant species near any active construction zone. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requiring a rare plant survey would be required to reduce impacts related to special-status plants to a less-than-significant level.

Based on the results of the literature review and the field surveys, and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions of the special-status wildlife species identified in the literature review, the Project Site has a moderate or high potential to support four special-status wildlife species: southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens; CDFW Watch List [WL]), Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli; WL), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; CDFW species of special concern [SSC]), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC). In addition, the Project Site has a low potential to support nine special-status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum; SSC), California legless lizard (Anniella spp.; SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; Candidate State Endangered [CSE]), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; State Threatened [ST]), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; Fully Protected [FP]), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum; SSC), and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; SSC). One specialstatus wildlife species was also observed during the field survey: Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern). All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB are not expected to occur within the Project Site based on existing site conditions and a review of specific habitat requirements, occurrence records, and known distributions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31 Permanent direct impacts to special-status wildlife species may occur during implementation of the proposed Project. Impacts to these species, which include both bird and reptile species, include the loss of individuals, loss of important resources, and/or the loss of suitable habitat.

Project construction could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, causing injury or mortality.

Although most adult birds are mobile and can escape direct injury or mortality by fleeing from a construction site, a displaced animal may be more vulnerable to injury or mortality if its territory has been impacted. Furthermore, nesting birds are protected under the MBTA. For special-status bird species with potential to nest in the project area, direct impacts could include the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally between February 15 and August 31). Direct impacts to individuals of designated special-status species could occur during a critical period of these species’ life cycles and could result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. These species include southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (WL), Bell’s sparrow (WL), and Lawrence’s goldfinch (BCC).

Most reptiles are unable to escape direct impacts and may be crushed or entombed by construction equipment. Impacts could include the loss of burrows, eggs, and adult and juvenile individuals during vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities. Direct impacts to individuals of designated special-status species could occur during a critical period of these species’ life cycles and could result in reduced reproductive success during the construction period. These special-status reptiles include coastal whiptail (SSC) and coast horned lizard (SSC).

Indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species may also occur during implementation of the proposed Project. These impacts include construction noise that may temporarily affect a bird attempting to nest in the area, or with an active nest. Construction-related noise has been documented to cause birds to abandon their nests and young, ultimately having an impact on that species’ survival. Reptilian species have the potential to nest and burrow underground and ground vibration from construction can cause premature emergence due to vibrations mimicking rain, or burrow abandonment. Increased lighting due to night work may also potentially affect nearby sensitive species or attract predators to that area. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would be required to reduce impacts related to special-status wildlife to a less-than-significant level.

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. If no special-status 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 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 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32 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 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 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.

Mitigation Measure 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 special-status 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. According to the Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, 11 potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. However, no associated riparian habitat was observed in association with any of these aquatic features.16 Additionally, 13 special-status vegetation communities have been reported in the California Natural Diversity Database within the US Geological Survey Warm Springs Mountain, Newhall, Mint Canyon, Agua Dulce, Sleepy Valley, Burnt Peak, Lake Hughes, Del Sur, and Green Valley, California 7.5-minute quadrangles: California walnut woodland, mainland cherry forest, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, southern California three-spine stickleback stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley oak woodland.

However, none of these special-status vegetation communities were identified within the Project Site during the field surveys. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (WoUS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharges to waters of the State (WoS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and, the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).

Eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. These features exhibit an ephemeral flow regime based on the results of the Streamflow Duration Assessment Method assessment, are not relatively permanent waters, and do not exhibit a continuous surface connection to a downstream traditional navigable water. Accordingly, these features would not be considered subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Therefore, the jurisdiction of the RWQCB reflects that of the State and totals approximately 0.39 acre (7,570 linear feet) of non-wetland WoS. In addition, these aquatic features exhibited a bed and bank and are therefore considered jurisdiction to CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of CFGC; the onsite portions of these aquatic features comprise approximately 2.05 acres (7,570 linear feet) 16 In this document, “aquatic features” refer to small stream channels in the Project Site that have a distinct bed and bank, are ephemeral in nature, and potentially fall under jurisdiction of the CDFW and the RWQCB. As the “aquatic features” onsite are ephemeral, many only contain water during and after storms. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 of jurisdictional vegetated streambed. However, only the regulatory agencies can make the final determination of jurisdictional limits.

Upon determination of jurisdictional limits, any potential impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction of RWQCB and CDFW may require a Water Discharge Requirement and/or authorization from CDFW prior to construction. These potential impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. These impacts would decrease the amount of jurisdictional waters within the Project Site. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through BIO9 would be required to reduce impacts related to state protected aquatic features to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation Measure 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 Porter-Cologne 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 in-lieu 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.

The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. 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 in-lieu 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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 nonnative plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the project site. All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during post-construction 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant. Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: dispersal, seasonal migration, and movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

Although the nature of these movements are species specific, large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community representing all types of movement. Each type of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from non-migratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds on a “local” level to many square mile home ranges of large mammals moving at a “regional” level. The location of the Project Site supports all types of wildlife movement on some scale.

Movement on a smaller or “local” scale occurs throughout the surrounding vicinity as well as the Project Site. Data gathered from biological surveys indicate that the Project Site contains habitat that supports a variety of species of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The home range and average dispersal distance of many of these species may be entirely contained within the Project Site and immediate vicinity. Populations of animals such as insects, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and a few bird species may find all their resource requirements without moving far or outside of the Project Site at all. Occasionally, individuals expanding their home range or dispersing from their parental range will attempt to move outside of the Project Site.

Mammals known to occur within the Project Site either by direct observation or by the presence of sign include the California ground squirrel, coyote, and bobcat.

Movement on a larger, “regional” scale is likely to occur to and from the Project Site due to the availability of resources within the Project Site and in the surrounding area. The Project Site is within a large open space area of the San Gabriel Mountains. The undeveloped nature of the area, in addition to the resources provided within the unnamed drainages (e.g., prey, water, and vegetative cover), ridgelines, and dirt roads, facilitate wildlife movement in the form of travel routes (i.e., a landscape feature, such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip).

Given an open space area that is both large enough to maintain viable populations of species and provide a variety of travel routes (canyons, ridgelines, trails, riverbeds, and others), wildlife will use these “local” routes while searching for food, water, shelter, and mates, and will not need to cross into other large open space areas. Based on their size, location, vegetative composition, and availability of food, some of these movement areas (e.g., large drainages and canyons) are used for longer lengths of time and serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-sized mammals. This is especially true if the travel route is within a larger open space area. However, once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles such as roads and highways, remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas can “become” corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 The Project Site consists mostly of undeveloped land and open space with natural vegetation communities. A small portion of the Project Site consists of developed/disturbed land that is devoid of vegetation or has current or historical development. The Project Site is not identified as a wildlife corridor within any natural community conservation plan, habitat conservation plan, or subarea plan. The proposed Project consists of the establishment of recreational mountain bike trails and associated development. Although the establishment of these trails and amenities would decrease the amount of native vegetation within the Project Site, the Project is not anticipated to cause any impacts to wildlife movement or connectivity within the Project Site or to the surrounding area since development of the Project would not cause the existing open space area to become constrained or fragmented. Although the proposed Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of the 380-acre Project Site to construct the trails and supporting facilities, the proposed trails would generally follow the existing grade of the area, and native plants would be used to revegetate any disturbed areas. Therefore, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native wildlife, the use of wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Santa Clarita’s Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, Ordinance No. 89-10, is the only policy or ordinance protecting biological resources in the City.

The Project would not remove any oak trees, and thus, would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with these plans and there would be no impact.
g. Would the project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita SEA Delineation Map? No Impact. Significant Ecological Areas are defined as ecologically important land and water systems that are valuable as plant or animal communities, often important to the preservation of threatened or endangered species, and conservation of biological diversity in the identified areas.

The Project Site is not located within any identified Significant Ecological Areas designated within Los Angeles County.17 As such, implementation of the Project would not affect a Significant Ecological Area and there would be no impact.
17 Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, July 2022, Chapter 9, Figure 9.3. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project by Michael Baker International, which is included as Appendix D of this IS/MND.18
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact. A historical resource is generally defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting certain requirements; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined by the lead agency based on substantial evidence to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values.

A California Historical Resources Information System Review records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted on December 6, 2023, for the Project Site and a surrounding 0.5-mile radius. The SCCIC records search results indicated that six previously recorded cultural resources have been identified and recorded within the half-mile radius of the Project Site, one of which, CA-LAN-3132H, a historic-period site consisting of two structure pad foundations, intersects the Project Site. All of the resources identified within the search area were 18 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project” and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 historic-aged resources. No prehistoric-aged sites were identified. Additionally, an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Site occurred on February 12–14, 2024. During the pedestrian survey, one newly recorded mid-twentieth-century mining site, given the temporary designation of BlueCloud-MBI-01H, was identified.

Site BlueCloud-MBI-01H was recorded during the current study as the ruins of a mining site once owned and operated by the Harris family. Archival research identified that Walter and Betty Harris applied for a mining claim for the area in 1966. While the Blue Cloud Dust Mine and the remaining machinery and mining locations may have contributed to the local economy in the Santa Clarita region in the second half of the twentieth century, research has not revealed any significant events associated with the mine that are important to national, state, regional, or local history. Archival research indicates that the site was owned and operated by Norman Harris, son of Walter and Betty Harris. While Dr. Harris may be a notable member of the Newhall and Santa Clarita community, being a founding member of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, the Blue Cloud Dust Mine is not considered to be what Dr. Harris is most known for, nor is his association with the site particularly notable or important to national, state, or local history. The site and its currently identified component features consist of a wash plant that stands, a Trailmobile dry semitrailer, two rubble piles with associated abandoned equipment, a water tank situated for mining operations, a five-course brick retaining wall, a water standpipe with a meter, two concrete pads where structures or equipment may have been, an 1800s wooden carriage donned with a metal water tank, a tractor, a truck, and other refuse. The site does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. Lastly, the information and documentation presented in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment exhaust the site's data potential. The visible ruins of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine site and the available archival information about it do not indicate that the site possesses any further potential to yield information important to the community, state, or nation's prehistory or history. Therefore, the site is recommended ineligible for listing in the California Register and is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).

Therefore, no historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) were identified within the Project Site as a result of the SCCIC records search; pedestrian survey; and California Register evaluations. As such, the Project would have no impact on historic resources. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An archaeological resource is generally defined in Section 15064.5I of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area, or place determined to be historically significant as defined in Section 15064.5(a) or as a unique archaeological resource, which is defined in PRC Section 21083.2 as an artifact, object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of public interest, or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historical event or person.

Archaeological sensitivity zones are qualitative and based on the general presence and/or absence of Native American occupation sites, isolated prehistoric Native American artifacts and burials, and historic archival and archaeological materials exposed during various construction projects. The Project Site is 3 miles north of the Santa Clara River, which would have provided an important resource procurement locale for prehistoric inhabitants of the area. The Project Site _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39 is composed of Castaic-Balcom silty clay loams, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CmF2); Saugus loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (ScF2); Sorrento loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (SsB); and Yolo loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (YoC).The majority of the Project area is steeply sloped; generally, slopes of greater than 30 degrees have low potential for buried archaeological sites.

Topographic maps, aerial photographs, and archival records have indicated that historic-period homesteads and mining operations were established within or near the Project Site during the early to mid-twentieth century. As discussed under Checklist Question V.a, all of the resources identified in the records search within the search area were historic-aged resources and no prehistoric-aged sites were identified. Based on the archival research, soils, available resources, and pedestrian survey results, the archaeological sensitivity for potentially unknown prehistoric archaeological sites within the area of potential effect is low, and the potential for significant buried historic period resources is also considered low.

Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 are included to require the proper handling and disposition of archaeological resources in the unexpected event that such resources are inadvertently discovered during Project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: 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 ground-disturbing 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 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In 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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Avoidance 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 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 non-human 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 occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41  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. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No evidence of any prior human burials or use as a burial ground was identified for the Project Site during the records search and background research conducted for the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Native American consultation process conducted for the Project. Nonetheless, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during Project construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that any impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: If 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.

VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary construction of energy
resources, during project construction or
operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 Explanation of Checklist Responses
This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this IS/MND.19

EXISTING SETTING
Electricity, a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for onsite distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid.

Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.

In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 68,485 gigawatt-hours per year of electricity.

Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network and, therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas satisfies almost one-third of the state’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet.

In 2022, Los Angeles County consumed 2,820 million therms of natural gas.

Petroleum-based fuels currently account for a majority of California’s transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the State has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Accordingly, petroleum-based fuel consumption in California has declined. In 2022, 3,070 million gallons of gasoline and 295 million gallons of diesel was sold in Los Angeles County. a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems. The following 19 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project.” In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project’s construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43 section calculates the potential energy consumption associated with the construction and operations of the proposed Project and provides a determination if any energy utilized by the proposed Project is wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Construction
The proposed Project would consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project Site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power; and,

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Construction-Related Electricity
During construction the proposed Project would consume electricity to construct the proposed bike park and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the Project Site by portable generators. Electricity consumed during Project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Therefore, the use of electricity during Project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Construction-Related Natural Gas
Construction of the proposed Project would not involve the consumption of natural gas.

Development of the proposed Project would not require any natural gas connections and no natural gas lines would be moved as part of the proposed Project. Therefore, no impact to natural gas supply and infrastructure would occur related to construction.

Construction-Related Petroleum Fuel Use
Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off-road equipment operating on the Project Site and on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the Project Site as well as on-road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the Project Site. The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions in CalEEMod. It is estimated that construction of the proposed Project would consume 2,623 gallons of gasoline and 43,512 gallons of diesel fuel. This equates to 0.0001 percent of the gasoline and 0.01 percent of the diesel used annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the construction-related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current county-wide petroleum usage rates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Therefore, impacts regarding transportation energy would be less than significant.

Additionally, development of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed Project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete. However, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction.

Operation
The on-going operation of the proposed Project would require the use of energy resources limited to generators for food trucks and music, and from off-road equipment used for the maintenance of the trails. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment, and vehicle trips.

Operations-Related Electricity
Operation of the proposed Project would not utilize any electricity, other than from the occasional generator use that is included under the analysis of operations-related off-road equipment below.

Operations-Related Natural Gas
Operation of the proposed Project would not utilize any natural gas.

Operations-Related Off-Road Equipment
Skip loaders, mini-excavators, and/or a trail dozer would be utilized for monthly maintenance of the trails. In addition, portable generators would be utilized for events for the operation of a food truck and/or for music. It is estimated that off-road equipment for operation of the proposed Project would consume 652 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all state and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment. As such, operational activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of diesel fuel. Therefore, impacts regarding operational off-road equipment energy usage would be less than significant.

Operations-Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage
Operation of the proposed Project would result in increased consumption of petroleum-based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the Project Site. It is estimated that the proposed Project would consume 18.458 gallons of gasoline per year from vehicle travel. This equates to

0.0005 percent of the gasoline consumed annually in Los Angeles County. As such, the operations-related petroleum use from the proposed Project would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45 It should be noted that the proposed Project would comply with all federal, state, and city requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy. Furthermore, the proposed Project promotes the use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bicycles). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The City currently does not have a plan pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, the applicable energy plan for the proposed Project is the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan.

The proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable energy-related policies in the General Plan are shown in Table VI-1.

Table VI-1
Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies Policy
No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

8.2.6 Promote use of solar lighting in parks and
along paseos and trails, where practical.

Consistent. No permanent lighting would be
installed as part of the proposed Project.

8.3.1 Evaluate site plans proposed for new
development based on energy efficiency
pursuant to LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) standards for New
Construction and Neighborhood Development,
including the following: a) location efficiency;
b) environmental preservation; c) compact,
complete, and connected neighborhoods; and
d) resource efficiency, including use of
recycled materials and water
Consistent. The proposed Project does not
include any structures that would utilize
energy.

8.3.2 Promote construction of energy efficient
buildings through requirements for LEED
certification or through comparable alternative
requirements as adopted by local ordinance
Consistent. The proposed Project does not
include any structures that would utilize
energy.

8.3.6 Require new development to use passive
solar heating and cooling techniques in
building design and construction, which may
include but are not be limited to building
orientation, clerestory windows, skylights,
placement and type of windows, overhangs to
shade doors and windows, and use of light
colored roofs, shade trees, and paving
materials
Consistent. The proposed Project does not
include any structures that would utilize
energy. Proposed shade structures and vault
restrooms would be designed to use passive
solar heating and cooling techniques.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 Policy
No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions CO

8.3.7 Encourage the use of trees and landscaping
to reduce heating and cooling energy loads,
through shading of buildings and parking lots.

Consistent. No heating and cooling systems
would be installed into any of the proposed
Project’s structures. Where possible, trees
would be planted to provide shade to the
proposed event and parking areas.

8.3.8 Encourage energy-conserving heating and
cooling systems and appliances, and energyefficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction.

Consistent. No heating and cooling systems
or appliances would be installed into any of
the proposed Project’s structures.

8.3.9 Limit excessive lighting levels, and encourage
a reduction of lighting when businesses are
closed to a level required for security.

Consistent. No permanent lighting would be
installed as part of the proposed Project.

Source: City of Santa Clarita, 2011.

As shown in Table VI-1, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable energyrelated policies from the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on-or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47 Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code
(2004), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Result in a change in topography or ground
surface relief features? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g. Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of
10,000 cubic yards or more? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
h. Involve development and or/grading on a
slope greater than 10% natural grade? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i. Result in the destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique geologic or
physical feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
j. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project by ENGEO Incorporated, which is included as Appendix E of this IS/MND.20
a.i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 serves to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy and is intended to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue maps delineating these zones. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and 20 Note that since the completion of the geotechnical report in October 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project” and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The act defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years.

The Project Site is located in a seismically active region in Southern California near several fault lines. However, according to the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Project Site is not mapped within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.21 In addition, the Project Site is not located within any other known fault zones.22 As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.
a.ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the City, including the Project Site, is located in the vicinity of active, conditionally active, and potentially active faults.23 The nearest fault is the Pelona Fault zone, which is located approximately one mile northeast of the Project Site.24 Seismic activity along this fault or on any other of the numerous faults in the Southern California area could cause seismic ground shaking in the City. The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables. However, the proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a seismic event. Additionally, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code, Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to seismic ground shaking the event of an earthquake. Moreover, the Project would in no way exacerbate the risks of seismic ground shaking. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, water-saturated sediments lose strength and fail during strong ground shaking. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased porewater pressure. Liquefaction typically occurs during prolonged ground shaking events such as earthquakes, and the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Liquefaction potential is greatest in saturated, loose, and poorly graded sand. 21 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed February 13, 2024. 22 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed February 13, 2024. 23 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, May 2022, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20-%20Safety%20Element.pdf, accessed February 13, 2024. 24 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed February 13, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49 According to the CGS, a portion of the Project Site lies within a liquefaction zone.25 The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables, as well as multi-use trails. However, the proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a seismic event. Additionally, according to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, the impacts associated with potential seismicinduced liquefaction settlements on the planned improvements are considered low. Moreover, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. a.iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides tend to occur in weak soil and rock on sloping terrain.

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, Santa Clarita Valley areas near rivers and floodplains are generally prone to earthquake-induced liquefaction, and hillsides are generally prone to earthquake-induced landslides. Large parts of the City are subject to these hazards, which are addressed through seismic design requirements and the Unified Development Code.26 According to the CGS, the Project Site is within a landslide zone.27 The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi-use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. However, the proposed multi-use trails would be constructed to follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, would not cause adverse effects involving landslides. The proposed Project would construct mountain bike courses (i.e., jump tracks, a dual slalom course, progressive jumplines, a progressive skills area) as well as other features in the flatter areas of the Project Site, and thus, would not cause adverse impacts involving landslides. The proposed Project would not include the development of any habitable structures or other facilities that could experience substantial hazards during a landslide. Additionally, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require grading, excavation, and other construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing soils and expose soils to rainfall and wind, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, as the Project Site exceeds 1 acre, the Project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 25 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed March 5, 2024. 26 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 27 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed March 5, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 System (NPDES) Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Construction General Permit requires construction sites that disturb 1 or more acres of land to implement stormwater controls and to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The measures identified in the SWPPP are intended to minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff. The Project would be subject to the erosion control requirements of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) and Chapter 17.90 related to the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plan, and best management practices (BMPs) designed to ensure that discharges of pollutants, including sediment, are effectively prohibited. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. No construction activity would begin prior to receipt of written approval of such plan. Furthermore, the Project construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion by requiring the implementation of dust control measures during construction.

Additionally, pursuant to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 17.95, prior to issuance of grading permit, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan that incorporates appropriate post-construction BMPs, including those related to erosion would be prepared. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is within landslide and liquefaction zones. However, the proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures that would be subject to liquefaction. Additionally, the proposed multi-use trails would be constructed to follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, would not cause adverse effects involving landslides. The proposed Project would construct mountain bike courses and other features in the flatter areas of the Project Site, and thus, would not cause adverse impacts involving landslides. Moreover, the design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to liquefaction and landslides.

Subsidence generally occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the rapid and intensive withdrawal of subterranean fluids such as groundwater or oil. No extraction of gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring at the Project Site. Additionally, the proposed Project would not include any groundwater extraction which could result in subsidence. As such, Project impacts related to subsidence would not occur.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, relatively low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of sufficient water or excessive loading. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, the risk of hydrocollapse of native soils at the Project Site is considered low. Additionally, construction of the proposed Project would not result in excessive loading of the soils on site. The soils would be compacted and watered to maintain the bike courses and trails; however, watering is expected to reinforce the stability of the trails and soil collapse would not present an unusual risk for the Project Site. The design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51 Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. As such, Project impacts related to collapsible soils would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to an unstable geologic unit would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2004), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project, silt and lean clay were encountered in the upper portion of the geotechnical borings at the Project Site. Laboratory testing on soil samples yielded values that generally correspond to low to medium shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. However, the explorations indicate that the distribution of potentially expansive soil is highly variable at the Project Site, both in depth and lateral extent, which is typical for alluvial deposits. Structural damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by properly blending, moisture conditioning, and compacting fills, subexcavating and rebuilding cut areas with homogeneous, properly moistureconditioned fills, designing hardscape/pavements to accommodate expansive soil, and supporting structures on properly designed foundations. The design and construction of the proposed trails, bike courses, and vault restrooms would be required to comply with the California Building Code; Title 18, City Building Code, of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; and Title 26, Building Code, of the LACMC. Compliance with the existing seismic safety requirements of the California Building Code and Municipal Codes of the City and County, would minimize risks pertaining to expansive soils. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed Project would include three vault restrooms that would be serviced weekly by a septic removal truck. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Would the project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? g. Would the project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
h. Would the project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would involve minimal ground disturbance throughout the 380-acre Project Site. Construction of the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead would be constructed in a relatively flat area of the Project Site and any excavated soils would be used to construct the bike courses. The proposed trails would be located on slopes greater than 10 percent in some areas of the Project Site. However, construction of the proposed trails would follow the existing topography and ridges of the site. The proposed trail widths would be 4 to 6 feet wide, and any excess soils would be used to create the trail alignments.

Therefore, impacts related to a change in topography or ground surface relief features; earth movement of 10,000 cubic yards or more; and development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 percent natural grade would be less than significant. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 i. Would the project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature?
j. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The 380-acre Project Site, like much of the Santa Clarita Valley, is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills and ridges. As discussed in Checklist Question I.a, portions of the Project Site are mapped as areas of Ridgeline Preservation, which preserve ridgelines within City limits for the public health, safety and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents. However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not result in the destruction or covering of any unique geologic or physical feature. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area and any ridgelines, and thus, the Project would not result in the modification of the ridgelines such that it would have a significant impact on any unique geologic features.

Soil types within the Project Site are primarily Castaic-Balcom silty clay loam in the eastern Project Site and Saugus loam in the western Project Site. Geologic maps indicate that the Project Site is underlain by young alluvial valley deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene age), fine-grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin (Tertiary age), and coarse-grained Tertiary age formations of sedimentary origin (Tertiary age).28 The Project Site is mapped as Miocene and Pleistocene-Holocene aged, and is in the Newhall Formation in the western portion of the site and Mint Canyon Formation in the eastern portion. A paleontological resources record search conducted in January 2019 by the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum for the Bouquet Canyon Road Project, which is located approximately 0.9 miles south of the eastern Project Site, indicated that on the first and third ridges east of Haskell Canyon respectively, Castaic Formation localities LACM 7772-7773 produced fossil specimens of sea turtle, Cheloniidae, carnivore, Carnivora, and baleen whale, Mysticeti. As indicated in the records search, shallow excavations in the uppermost layers younger Quaternary Alluvium are unlikely to uncover significant vertebrate fossils; however, deeper excavations that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, as well as any excavations in the exposures of the Saugus Formation or the Castaic Formation may well uncover significant fossil vertebrate remains.29 While fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Project area, the proposed Project would not require ground disturbance at depths greater than four feet for the footers for the bike courses. Other construction activities, including the construction of the proposed bike courses and trails, would take place within previously disturbed fill sediments (e.g., clearing and grubbing) or at the current topsoil surface and do not require ground disturbance in undisturbed geologic contexts. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource. Therefore, impacts related to unique geologic features or paleontological resources would be less than significant. 28 California Department of Consevation, Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits, https://maps.conservation.ca. gov/cgs/QSD/, accessed March 20, 2024.
29 City of Santa Clarita, 2020, Bouquet Canyon Environmental Impact Report, Appendix E, Geotechnical Report and Paleontological Resources Records Check.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
This section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix A of this IS/MND.30

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent GHG, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. 30 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project.” In addition, the technical study modeled features that have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative. Moreover, the modeling assumed a construction schedule beginning October 2024 and ending December 2025. This represents a conservative scenario because a project’s construction air quality and GHG impacts would decrease if construction is delayed since newer equipment and vehicles enter the fleet mix with more stringent emission standards each year. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 The International Panel on Climate Change defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1.

EXISTING SETTING
According to California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, prepared by the CARB, December 14, 2023, the State of California created 381.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2021. The 2021 emissions were 12.6 MMTCO2e higher than 2020 but 23.1 MMTCO2e lower than 2019 levels. Both the 2019 to 2020 decrease and the 2020 to 2021 increase in emissions are likely due in part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that were felt globally. The transportation sector showed the largest increase in emissions of 10 MMTCO2e (7.4 percent) compared to 2020, which is most likely from passenger vehicles whose activity and emissions rebounded after COVID-19 shelter in place orders were lifted.
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. In order to identify significance criteria under CEQA for development projects, SCAQMD initiated a Working Group, which provided detailed methodology for evaluating significance under CEQA. At the September 28, 2010 Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use projects. Although the SCAQMD provided substantial evidence supporting the use of the above threshold, as of November 2017, the SCAQMD Board has not yet considered or approved the Working Group’s thresholds. As such, the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e annual threshold has been included in this analysis for informational purposes only and determination of significance for GHG emissions is based on determination of consistency with the applicable GHG emission reduction plans.

The proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed Project would consist of the development of a bike park and is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, off-road equipment and construction equipment.

The proposed Project would not include any utility connections, and thus, energy usage related to electricity and natural gas was not included. However, operation of the Project would occasionally utilize electricity through generators, which was modeled as part of the off-road equipment. The Project-related GHGs annual emissions is provided in Table VIII-1.

As shown in Table VIII-1, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate 204 MTCO2e per year, which has been provided in this analysis for informational purposes only. The determination of significance of GHG emissions impacts is provided in analysis under Checklist Question VIII.b, below, which shows the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures and strategies in the applicable reduction plans for the proposed Project. For reference purposes only, Table VIII-1 shows that the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 Table VIII-1
Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources1 164 0.01 0.01 166
Area Sources2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water and Wastewater4 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 0.13
Solid Waste5 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.46
Refrigeration6 -- -- -- 0.00
Operational Off-Road Equipment7 22.2 <0.01 <0.01 22.3
Construction8 15.03 <0.01 <0.01 15.10
Total GHG Emissions 201 0.02 0.01 204
SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance 3,000
Exceed Thresholds? No
Notes:
1 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 5 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Refrigeration includes GHG emissions from refrigerants in air conditioning units. No refrigeration would be provided as part of Project.
7 Operational Off-Road Equipment was modeled based on a skid steer loader operating 8 hours per day and 12 days per year, a generator operating up to 8 hours per day and 26 days per year, and an off-highway truck making weekly water truck deliveries 1 hour per day and 52 days per year. 8 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plans for the proposed Project include the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal 2020, and the 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2024). The consistency analysis for each of these plans are provided below.

Consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction actions and strategies necessary to achieve the AB 1279 target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions and strategies build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013) and in the second update to the Scoping Plan (2017). Although a number of these measures are currently established as statewide regulations, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. Table VIII-2 provides an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 proposed Project would be consistent with the reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

As shown below in Table VIII-2, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable proposed action or strategy in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan.

Table VIII-2
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold)
and Scoping Plan Action
Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping
Plan Actions
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40% below 1990 levels by 2030. No Conflict. As shown above in Table VIII-1, almost all of the GHG emissions generated by the
proposed Project would be from vehicle trips. AB
1493 controls GHG emissions from vehicles in
California. Through adherence with the AB 1493
tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the proposed
Project would not conflict with this strategy.

Smart Growth / Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by
2030, and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045.

No Conflict. Senate Bill 375 directs each regional
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
adopt a SCS/RTP that meet this reduction target.

SCAG is the MPO for the Project area. Connect
SoCal 2024 was prepared to meet these reduction
targets. Table VIII-3 below discusses how the
proposed Project would not conflict with Connect
SoCal 2024. As such, the proposed Project would
not conflict with this strategy.

Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all new LDVs sold in California to be
zero-emission by the year 2035. The proposed
Project would not include any vehicle sales
activities.

Truck ZEVs
100% of medium-duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV
by 2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute of
Transportation Studies [ITS] report).

Not Applicable. Executive Order N-79-20
requires all new LDVs sold in California to be
zero-emission by the year 2045. The proposed
Project would not include any truck sales
activities.

Aviation
10% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity
(batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045.

Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of
the aviation fuel demand that has not already
transitioned to hydrogen or batteries.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
utilize any aviation fuel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57 AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold)
and Scoping Plan Action
Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping
Plan Actions
Ocean-going Vessels (OGV)
2020 OGV At-Berth regulation fully implemented,
with most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027.
25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric
technology by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
utilize any OGVs.

Port Operations
100% of cargo handling equipment is zero-emission
by 2037. 100% of drayage trucks are zero emission
by 2035.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
impact any operations at any ports.

Freight and Passenger Rail
100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are
ZEV by 2030.
100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by
2035. Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on
hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily
utilize electricity.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
impact any freight or passenger rail operations.

Oil and Gas Extraction
Phase out oil and gas extraction operations by
2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
impact any oil and gas extraction activities.

Petroleum Refining
CCS on majority of petroleum refining operations by
2030. Production reduced in line with petroleum
demand.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
impact any petroleum refining activities.

Electricity Generation
Electric sector GHG target of 38 MMTCO2e in 2030
and 31 MMTCO2e in 2045.

Retail sales load coverage
Not Applicable. Senate Bill 1020 requires that
100 percent of retail sales of electricity be
generated by renewable or zero-carbon source of
electricity by December 1, 2045. The proposed
Project would not include any electrical utility
connections.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial).

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any electrical utility connections and would
not include the installation of any appliances.

Existing Residential Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035.

Appliances are replaced at end of life.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any existing residential buildings.

Existing Commercial Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045.

Appliances are replaced at end of life.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any existing commercial buildings.

Food Products

7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or
indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any commercial food production activities.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold)
and Scoping Plan Action
Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping
Plan Actions
Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
electrified by 2045.

No Conflict. Executive Order N-79-20 requires all
off-road vehicles and equipment to transition to
100 percent zero-emission equipment, where
feasible, by 2035. All construction equipment
fleets utilized during construction of the proposed
Project are required to be registered with CARB
and meet CARB’s current emission reductions
regulations, which are anticipated to be updated
to meet Executive Order N-79-20 requirements.

As such, the proposed Project would not conflict
with this strategy.

Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper
Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of boilers
by 2045. Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by
2035 and 100% by 2045. Electrify 100% of other
energy demand by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any pulp and paper production activities.

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement
CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all
facilities by 2045.

Process emissions reduced through alternative
materials and CCS.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any stone, clay, glass and cement
production activities.

Other Industrial Manufacturing
0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% by
2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any other industrial manufacturing
activities.

Combined Heat and Power
Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include any existing combined heat and power
facilities.

Agriculture Energy Use
25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
by 2045.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any commercial agriculture activities.

Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation
Biomass supply is used to produce conventional
and advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any production of fuels for transportation.

Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry
In 2030s, renewable natural gas (RNG) blended in
pipeline. Renewable hydrogen blended in natural
gas pipeline at 7% energy (~20% by volume),
ramping up between 2030 and 2040. In 2030s,
dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve
certain industrial clusters.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any production of fuels for buildings and
industry.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59 AB 32 GHG Inventory Sector (shown in Bold)
and Scoping Plan Action
Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping
Plan Actions
Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Increase landfill and dairy digester methane
capture. Some alternative manure management
deployed for smaller dairies. Moderate adoption of
enteric strategies by 2030. Divert 75% of organic
waste from landfills by 2025. Oil and gas fugitive
methane emissions reduced 50% by 2030 and
further reductions as infrastructure components
retire in line with reduced fossil gas demand.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include the operation of any landfill or dairy.

High GWP Potential Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building
electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include the manufacturing of appliances that use
low GWP refrigerants.

Compensate for Remaining Emissions
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) demonstration
projects deployed by 2030. CDR scaled to
compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2045
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
include any CDR demonstration projects
Source: CARB, 2022.

Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. It is up to each MPO in the State (SCAG is the MPO for Southern California) to adopt a RTP/SCS to meet the reduction target set by CARB for the Southern California region. Connect SoCal 2020 adopted by SCAG was prepared to meet a 2035 GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent reduction over the 2005 per capita emissions levels through the implementation of new initiatives of land use, transportation and technology strategies. Table VIII-3 provides an evaluation of applicable goals and strategies to determine the Project’s consistency with the reduction strategies outlined in Connect SoCal 2020.

Table VIII-3
Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Strategies Consistency Assessment
Connect SoCal Goals
Goal 1: Encourage regional
economic prosperity and global
competitiveness.

Not Applicable. This goal is directed at SCAG and does not apply to the proposed Project. This strategy calls on encouraging regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. The proposed Project would not interfere with such policymaking.

Goal 2: Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and travel
safety for people and goods.

Consistent. The Project proposes to construct a bike park in an area that is in close proximity to existing commercial and residential uses. The proposed Project would promote the enjoyment and use of alternative modes of travel (i.e., bike riding) and would construct new trails that would connect to the existing multi-use trails, thereby improving public accessibility to the trail system in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 Strategies Consistency Assessment
Goal 3: Enhance the
preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional
transportation system.

Consistent. The Project proposes to construct a bike park with approximately 15 miles of maintained bike and multi-use trails that would connect to the existing trail system. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with this goal.

Goal 4: Increase person and
goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation
system.

Not Applicable. This strategy calls on SCAG to increase person and goods movement and travel choices across the transportation system. The proposed Project would not interfere with this goal.

Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality.

Consistent. The Project would result in criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, emissions would be nominal. Moreover, the proposed Project would encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMTs and associated GHG emissions.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with this goal.

Goal 6: Support healthy and
equitable communities.

Consistent. The Project would be consistent with this goal by constructing a public bike park that would facilitate athletic activities (i.e., bike riding), which would aid in supporting healthy and equitable communities.

Goal 7: Adapt to a changing
climate and support an integrated
regional development pattern and
transportation network.

Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not apply to individual development projects. Nevertheless, the Project would support this goal by expanding the trail network in the Project area.

Goal 8: Leverage new
transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.

Not Applicable. This goal is directed towards SCAG and does not apply to the proposed Project. This strategy calls on SCAG to use new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions to increase efficiency. The proposed Project would not interfere with this goal.

Goal 9: Encourage development
of diverse housing types in areas
that are supported by multiple
transportation options.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include the development of housing. However, the proposed Project would develop a bike park in close proximity to existing residential uses, which would provide existing residents with an alternative transportation option (i.e., bike riding).

Goal 10: Promote conservation
of natural and agricultural lands
and restoration of habitats.

Consistent. The Project Site is not currently used for any agricultural uses. Except for the proposed 15 miles of trails and the two programming areas, the remainder of the Project Site would remain undeveloped. Moreover, disturbed areas of the Project Site would be revegetated upon completion of the Project construction. Therefore, the Project is consistent with this goal.

Connect SoCal Strategies
Strategy 1: Focus growth near
destinations and mobility options.

Consistent. The proposed Project would develop a bike park in close proximity to existing commercial and residential uses. The bike park is intended to serve as a recreational destination for residents and would promote biking as an alternative mode of transportation.

Strategy 2: Promote diverse
housing choices.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not include any new housing. It should be noted that the Project is being constructed on land designated for open space and would not impede on the development of any potential future housing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 Strategies Consistency Assessment
Strategy 3: Leverage technology
innovations.

Not Applicable. This strategy is directed to SCAG and
jurisdictions and does not apply to the proposed Project. This strategy aims to promote low emission technologies, improve access to services through technology, and identify ways to incorporate micro power grids into communities. The proposed Project would not interfere with this strategy.

Strategy 4: Support
implementation of sustainability
policies.

Consistent. The proposed Project would not be connected to any utilities and would utilize vault restrooms. As such, the Project would result in low water and energy consumption.

Strategy 5: Promote a Green
Region.

Consistent. Development of the proposed bike park within existing open space would not interfere with regional wildlife connectivity or convert agricultural land. Upon completion of Project construction, the Project would revegetate disturbed areas within the Project Site. The proposed Project would also improve public accessibility to park space and encourage biking as an alternative mode of transportation that would reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would support this strategy.

Source: SCAG, Connect SoCal, September 2022.

As shown above in Table VIII-3, the proposed Project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy in Connect SoCal 2020. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Connect SoCal 2020.

Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024
Connect SoCal 2024 was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024. However, per SB 375, SCAG and CARB are required to work together until CARB staff conclude that the calculations and quantifications provided would yield accurate estimates of GHG emission reductions. Since CARB staff continue to have significant outstanding concerns about the technical methodology utilized in Connect SoCal 2024, the current approved RTP/SCS is Connect SoCal 2020. A consistency evaluation of Connect SoCal 2024 is included in order to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Connect SoCal 2024 includes over 90 implementation strategies in order to meet the year 2035 GHG emission reduction targets set for the Southern California region as mandated by SB 375.

The implementation strategies are directed toward SCAG and other regional agencies to implement and are not directly applicable to individual development projects. Regardless, the proposed Project, which consists of development of a bike park in the nearby proximity to existing commercial and residential uses would conform to and promote many of these implementation strategies by encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes (i.e., bike riding) and providing access to an equitable and active recreational activity area. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with any proposed goal or strategy and would be consistent with Connect SoCal 2024.

Based on the consistency analysis for the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, Connect SoCal 2020, and Connect SoCal 2024 provided above, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG and impacts would be less than significant.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
i. Expose people to existing sources of
potential health hazards (e.g., electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the proposed Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment.

However, all potentially hazardous materials used during Project construction would be used and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, as well as manufacturers’ specifications and instructions, thereby reducing the risk of hazardous materials use. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, including but not limited to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Acts, SCAQMD rules, and permits. These existing regulations are aimed at limiting the amount of hazardous materials used, accident prevention, protection from exposure to specific chemicals, and the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials.

Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Accordingly, Project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials during construction. Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

During operations, the proposed uses would involve the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment. Similar to construction, operation of the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project’s operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. As detailed below in Checklist Question IX.d, the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There are no underground storage tanks within the Project Site,31 and no oil/gas wells are within the Project Site or adjoining properties.32 The Project Site was not observed to contain subsurface structures or facilities used to process, store, or discharge petroleum or hazardous substances during the field surveys conducted for the Biological Resources Technical Report, the Aquatic Resources Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report, or the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.

Additionally, as discussed in Checklist Question IX.a, the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, UST Finder, https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=b03763d3f2754461adf86f121345d7bc, accessed March 11, 2024. 32 California Department of Conservation, Well Finder CalGEM GIS, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/ wellfinder/, accessed March 6, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. There are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Project Site. The school nearest to the Project Site is Mountainview Elementary School, located approximately 0.9 miles to the west of the western boundary of the Project Site. As such, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project Site is not listed on any of the following list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: DTSC EnviroStor database of hazardous waste cleanup sites; SWRCB list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; SWRCB GeoTracker database of leaking underground storage tanks sites and cleanup program sites; and SWRCB list of sites with active cease and desist orders (CDO) and cleanup or abatement orders (CAO).33 Therefore, the Project would have no impacts related to listed hazardous material sites. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 12.2 miles to the northeast.34 Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to airport-related safety hazards or excessive noise.
33 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Background and History, https://calepa.ca.gov/site cleanup/corteselist/background/, accessed February 12, 2024. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed February 12, 2024. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf, accessed February 12, 2024. SWRCB, GeoTracker, List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/#, accessed February 12, 2024. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(c), List of “active” and CDO and CAO, https://calepa.ca.gov/site cleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5c/, accessed February 12, 2024. 34 EPA, NEPAssist, https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx, accessed February 12, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Emergency response and evacuation for the Project Site is governed by the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, in the event of evacuations, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) directs Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) regarding areas that need to be evacuated. That information is then shared with the C’ty's Emergency Operations Center, and emergency notification is then conveyed to residents.35 Emergency response to accidents associated with hazardous material is generally undertaken by the LACoFD’s Health Hazardous Materials Division.

Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. During operation, an emergency could require partial or total evacuation of the Project Site and/or sheltering in place for some portions of the Project Site. The City’s existing emergency response procedures would not change with implementation of the proposed Project and would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of natural or man-made incidents in the Project area that result in a need to evacuate some or all of the future Project visitors and employees.

Existing fire roads within the Project Site could be used. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core programming area would include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks, which would improve emergency vehicle access to the Project Site. Thus, the proposed Project would not preclude the City and County from implementing the Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and Hazardous Waste Management Plan.Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the wildland urban interface is defined as an area where human made structures, including power lines and other utility structures, are located within or adjacent to areas prone to wildfire events. The hills and mountainous areas of Santa Clarita are considered to be interface areas, and approximately 80 to 90 percent of the Santa Clarita Valley is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ),36 including the Project Site.37 35 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 36 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 37 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Web Map, https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d2ea45d15c784adfa601e84b38060c4e, accessed March 12, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 Construction of the proposed Project would bring workers and construction equipment to the Project Site for approximately 6 months. Operation of the proposed Project would generate up to 250 visitors and 100 vehicle trips during special events and up to 180 visitors and 100 vehicles on weekends. The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures or residences.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City Building Codes, which include showing proof through certification with the LACoFD that new development is located within a designated distance of a water source such as water supply tanks or retention basins for emergency firefighting purposes. Compliance with the Building Code also includes fire prevention strategies such as the provision of access roads, adequate road widths, and clearance of brush around structures located in hillside areas that are considered primary wildland fire risk areas. The City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings.38 Additionally, as previously discussed, the parking lot for the Haskell Core would include space for emergency turnaround for firetrucks. These proposed Project features could improve emergency evacuation in the area. Similar to existing conditions, signage with rules and regulations for the park that state no smoking and no spark emitting equipment would be placed in various areas throughout the mountain bike park. Moreover, the City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire-related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe.

Nonetheless, the proposed Project would require construction and operation within a VHFHSZ.

While construction equipment would be equipped with a spark arrester as required by the Los Angeles Fire Code Section 326.12.1, construction activities could still accidentally spark a fire.

Additionally, Project operation would bring more visitors to the Project Site than under existing conditions, especially during event days; visitors could be in the park while a nearby wildfire is happening. Thus, the proposed Project could expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire. Therefore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be required to reduce impacts related to wildland fires to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: 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.
38 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Forestry Fuel Modification, https://fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-fuel-modification/ #1566437238201-d272ffef-2b3d, accessed March 12, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Three (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. i. Would the project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Less Than Significant Impact. Hazards associated with overhead transmission lines range from exposure to electrical magnetic fields to live wires and flashovers when a person or equipment gets too close to an overhead line. Surface or subsurface-level natural gas or other fuel lines can pose risks when improper contact is made, resulting in leaks, fire, and/or explosions.

The Project Site is currently undeveloped. An existing east-west overhead transmission line traverses the southern portion of the project site. Additionally, a north-south overhead electrical transmission line is located in the eastern portion of the Project Site within Los Angeles County boundaries. Several transmission towers are located within the Project Site, and the proposed trails would traverse near the transmission towers. According to the USEPA, the potential health risks from electrical magnetic fields decrease with limited exposure to them.39 The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures on the Project Site that would result in prolonged exposure of visitors to electrical magnetic fields, live wires, or flashovers from the transmission towers. Recreational users of the proposed mountain bike park would traverse the various trails throughout the Project Site and would not be exposed to overhead transmission lines for long periods of time. Additionally, the risk of hazards from live wires and flashovers is similar to other transmission towers and power lines in urbanized areas of the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the risk of exposure to electrical transmission lines to visitors of the bike park.

As there are no existing structures on the Project Site requiring natural gas service, there is no natural gas infrastructure located within the Project Site. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Pipeline Mapping System shows that the nearest natural gas transmission line and hazardous liquid pipeline is located approximately 6 miles west of the Project Site.40 Based on the above, the Project would not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.
39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines, https://www.epa.gov/radtown/ electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20concerned%20about,time%20spent%20 around%20the%20source.
40 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Pipeline Mapping System, https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/Public Viewer/, accessed February 12, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the that there would be a
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
j. [Result in] inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
k. Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents,
or the course and direction of surface water
and/or groundwater?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
l. [Result in] other modification of a wash,
channel creek, or river? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69 Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
m. Impact stormwater management in any of the
following ways?
i) Potential impact of project construction
and project post-construction activity on
stormwater runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Potential discharges from areas for
materials storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste
handling, hazardous materials handling
or storage, delivery areas or loading
docks, or other outdoor work areas?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Significant environmentally harmful
increase in the flow velocity or volume of
stormwater runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful
increases in erosion of the Project Site or
surrounding areas?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Stormwater discharges that would
significantly impair or contribute to the
impairment of the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide
water quality benefits (e.g., riparian
corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of
drainage systems, watersheds, and/or
water bodies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
vii) Does the Proposed Project include
provisions for the separation, recycling,
and reuse of materials both during
construction and after project
occupancy?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Hydrology Study prepared for the Project by ENGEO Incorporated, which is included as Appendix F of this IS/MND.41
41 Note that since the completion of the geotechnical report in October 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project” and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Los Angeles RWQCB’s region. Biennially, the Los Angeles RWQCB prepares a list of impaired waterbodies and the specific pollutant(s) in the region referred to as the 303(d) list pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. All waterbodies on the 303(d) list are subject to the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The Project Site is located within and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed,42 which is not a 303d water body listed for sediment and does not have an approved USEPA TMDL plan for sedimentation. However, since the Project would disturb approximately 20 acres of land, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit (ORDER WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, effective September 1, 2023) and implement a SWPPP. In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project-specific SWPPP adheres to the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook and sets forth BMPs for stormwater and nonstormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, storm drain inlets protection, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. The SWPPP would be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB. All construction and grading activities would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulatory documents, including all applicable City ordinances and the City’s permit regulating discharges into and from the storm drain system. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department. With the implementation of the Project-specific SWPPP, the Project would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in discharge that would violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality. Thus, temporary construction-related impacts on surface water quality would be less than significant.

The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce approximately 1,750 square feet of paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site. However, the proposed impervious areas would constitute less than one percent of the surface area within the approximately 380-acre Project Site. Thus, drainage within the Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions.

However, if required, the Project would implement BMPs that would minimize the discharge of pollutants into the Santa Clara River Watershed. As part of the Project design, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Haskell Core. The infiltration basins would retain onsite a specified volume of stormwater runoff from a storm event to control stormwater quality. Therefore, Project impacts to surface water quality during operation would be less than significant.

Based on the California Department of Water Resources Well Completion Report Map Application, there are no active groundwater wells within the Project Site.43 Additionally, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered due to the shallow depth of excavation needed 42 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Santa Clara River Watershed map, http://www.ladpw.org/ wmd/watershed/sc/docs/SantaClaraRiver_wtrshed.pdf.
43 California Department of Water Resources, Well Completion Report Map Application, https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b37, accessed April 4, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71 for construction of the culverts and for the bike course footers (maximum depth of four feet).

Therefore, impacts related to groundwater quality would be less than significant.

Based on the above, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? k. Would the project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of groundwater?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, there are no active groundwater wells within the Project Site. Water for the proposed Project would be brought in by water trucks, and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site.

Thus, groundwater recharge within the Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. Additionally, as the Project Site would result in minimal changes and development, the rate of flow, currents, and the course and direction of groundwater within the Project Site would generally be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, Project impacts related to groundwater supplies and the flow of groundwater would be less than significant. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? m.iv) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 380-acre Project Site is characterized by a canyon with gentle to steep hills with trails. Development of the Project would require grading, excavation, and other construction activities that have the potential to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and disturb existing soils, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the drainage of the site. Additionally, the proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area. As discussed above in Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project would implement a SWPPP. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP would minimize the amount of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites from being discharged in stormwater runoff.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to the erosion control requirements of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapter 10.04 (Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control) and Chapter

17.90 related to the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plan, and BMPs designed to ensure that illicit discharges of pollutants not authorized by the NPDES permit, including sediment, are effectively prohibited. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. No construction activity would begin prior to receipt of written approval of such plan. Additionally, the Project would install a concrete J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch, which would convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. The Project’s drainage devices would mitigate the increased velocity of drainage and include dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion. The proposed Project would also include daily maintenance that would consist of compaction of the trails with hand tools and hand watering, with the expectation that trails would be revegetated over time to minimize erosion. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or cause harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
k. Would the project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water?
m.i) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
potential impact of project construction and project post-construction activity on stormwater runoff?
m.iii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and is primarily covered in vegetation. The proposed Project would introduce minimal paved (i.e., impervious) surfaces to the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site would remain mostly undeveloped and would only include small structures such as shade structures, vault restrooms, and wooden or asphalt bike tracks, which would not substantially change the drainage of the site.

The proposed trails would follow the existing grade of the area. Thus, drainage and runoff within the Project Site would generally follow the same pattern as the existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site; change the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water; impact stormwater management during construction and post-construction; or increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities and the proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. Thus, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73 As previously discussed in Checklist Questions X.a and X.f, construction of the proposed Project components would be subject to the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP would set forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department.

Additionally, the Project would install a concrete J-drain, a concrete v-ditch, and two infiltration basins to prevent erosion and control stormwater quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
g. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer (FEMA 2024), the Project Site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Numbers 06037C0810G and 06037C0830G. The Project Site occurs within Zones X and D. Zone X (500-year floodplains), which has at least a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding and Zone D is described as an area of undetermined flood hazard.

Thus, the proposed Project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no impact would occur.

Within the Santa Clarita Valley, dams are located at the Castaic Reservoir and the Bouquet Reservoir. The Project Site is located approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the Castaic Reservoir.

Based on the General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones.44 Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Checklist Question X.i, the Project Site is located approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the Castaic Reservoir. Based on the General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within the Castaic Dam Inundation Zone or any other inundation zones.45 Thus, the Project Site would not be susceptible to inundation due to seiches, which are earthquake-induced waves in enclosed bodies of water, that could send large volumes of water on downstream areas.

A tsunami is a sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, generated by an underwater seismic disturbance, such as sudden faulting or landslide activity. According to the California Department of Conservation mapping system for tsunami hazard areas, as the City of Santa Clarita is an inland community (approximately 25 miles northeast nearest portion of the Pacific 44 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 45 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 Ocean), the City would not be susceptible to experiencing tsunamis.46 Therefore, no impact would occur.

The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi-use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. Mudflow could occur from wildfire or storms. In regard to mudflow from wildfires, the last wildfire near the Project Site was the Buckweed Fire in 2007, which burned 38,000 acres.47 However, there have been no wildfires within or adjacent to the Project Site in at least the past 15 years. Thus, the Project Site would not result in inundation by mudflow as a result of post-fire slope instability. In regard to mudflow from storms, the proposed Project would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the proposed Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Additionally, the proposed bike courses and trails would be maintained such that erosion would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to mudflow would be less than significant. l. Would the project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Question IV.c, eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the Project may potentially result in impacts to aquatic features that are under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW. However, the final jurisdictional limits can only be determined by the regulatory agencies. These impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through BIO-9, any potential impacts related to the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river would be less than significant.
m.ii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would construct a bike park with parking and visitor amenities, such as shade structures, vault restrooms, a bike repair station, and picnic tables. As discussed in Checklist Question IX.a, construction activities for the proposed Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials, including for vehicle or equipment fueling and maintenance. Additionally, as detailed above in Checklist Question X.a, in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Project would implement a site-specific SWPPP that sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management. During operation, the proposed Project would involve 46 California Department of Conservation, Tsunami Hazard Area Maps, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=-13249590.3641%2C3986280.7635%2C-13132183.0887%2C4038 410.8168%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=losangeles, accessed April 4, 2024. 47 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75 the limited use of hazardous materials such as fuels and oils for equipment. Similar to construction, operations of the Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. As a recreational use, it is not anticipated that vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance would occur onsite, or that any deliveries would be necessary during operation of the bike park. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to stormwater management from potential discharges.
m.v) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:

Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? m.vi) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:

Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is located within and drains into the Santa Clara River Watershed, which is not a 303d water body listed for sediment, does not have an approved USEPA TMDL plan for sedimentation, and does not have beneficial uses of “Cold”, “Spawn”, and “Migratory”. Construction of the Project components would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES 2022 Construction Stormwater General Permit, which includes the implementation of a site-specific SWPPP adhering to the California Stormwater Quality Association Best Management Practices Handbook. The SWPPP sets forth BMPs for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges, including, but not limited to, sandbags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, wind erosion control, and stockpile management, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the Project would be required to receive approval of the SWPPP by the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Department. Moreover, the Project would install a concrete J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch, which would convey flows directly into the Haskell Canyon creek, similar to the existing condition drainage pattern. The Project’s drainage devices would mitigate the increased velocity of drainage and include dissipaters consisting of riprap, as necessary, to prevent erosion. Additionally, eleven potentially state or federal jurisdictional features were observed within the Project Site. All of the mapped aquatic features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. The Project may result in potential impacts to aquatic features that are under jurisdiction by the RWQCB and CDFW. However, the final jurisdictional limits can only be made by the regulatory agencies. These impacts may include any permanent impacts made by the establishment of trails and/or the associated development, and any temporary impacts during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through BIO-9, any potential impacts related to stormwater discharges that could impair beneficial uses or water quality benefits and stormwater management that could harm the biological integrity of waterbodies would be less than significant.
m.vii) Would the project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:

Does the proposed project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? Less Than Significant Impact. As described under Checklist Questions XIX.f and XIX.g, the proposed Project would not require any demolition, and thus would generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, such as vegetation from work area clearing. During operation, the proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of waste from users of the park, workers, _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 and volunteers, with additional waste during event days. All non-hazardous solid waste generated from the Project Site (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations, with a diversion goal of 75 percent, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Remaining non-hazardous solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills. The City would review building plans and ensure that adequate space is set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Project Site prior to issuance of building permits. Accordingly, as the Project would comply with adopted programs and regulations pertaining to solid waste and City waste diversion goals. Therefore, the Project would not result in stormwater management impacts related to solid waste provisions. Impacts would be less than significant.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, and/or policies by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped with dirt access paths/trails, LADWP transmission towers, and vegetation. The proposed Project would develop a bike park that would create new trails as well as connect to existing trails in the area. Thus, the proposed Project would improve connectivity within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Code govern land use of the western portion of the Project Site within City boundaries while the County’s General Plan and Zoning Code govern the land use of the eastern portion of the Project Site within County boundaries. The western portion of the Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of Open Space and is zoned OS in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. As stated in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element and Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.36.010, the OS zone is intended to identify and _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77 reserve land for passive, natural and active open space uses, including public and private parks, conservancy lands, nature preserves, wildlife habitats, water bodies and adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands areas dedicated to open space use, drainage easements, cemeteries, golf courses, and other open space areas dedicated for public or private use. Typical uses include recreation, trails, trailheads, paseos, horticulture, limited agriculture, animal grazing, and habitat preservation.

Public parks are permitted uses within the OS zone. The eastern portion of the Project Site is designated as RL10 and zoned A-2-2. According to the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, the purpose of the RL10 designation is to allow for single family residences, equestrian and animal uses, and agricultural and related activities. Per LACMC Section 22.16.030, the A-2 zone permits a comprehensive range of agricultural uses, as well as low-density single-family residential development, outdoor recreational uses, and public and institutional facilities. Riding and hiking trails may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review. As a mountain bike park with bike and multi-use trails, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. In addition, although the bike park may be permitted with a ministerial site plan review by the County, the City is not required to comply with land use regulations adopted by the County because of intergovernmental immunity (see, e.g., Lawler v. City of Redding (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 778; Government Code sections 53090 and 53091 [local agencies – except for cities and counties - must comply with building and zoning ordinances]). Therefore, no impact would occur. c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
No Impact. As described in response to Checklist Question IV.f, the Project Site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with such plans. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with such plan and policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Would the project use nonrenewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone, as identified on the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element’s Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources).48 According to the City’s General Plan, as well as the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder database, there are no producing, idle, or abandoned oil or natural gas wells, or any other types of mineral extraction activities within the Project Site.49 Furthermore, the Project Site is governed by the provisions of the OS zone within the City, which does not permit mineral recovery uses. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is not located within an existing Mineral Extraction Area or a Mineral Resource Zone. In addition, the Project Site is governed by the provisions of the OS zone within the City, which does not permit mineral recovery uses. Therefore, the Project Site is not a mineral resource recovery site, and no impact would occur. c. Would the project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would primarily use soil, wood planks, stones, gravel, and vegetation to construct the bike park. The proposed Project would also consume energy in the form of petroleum based fuel during construction for construction equipment and vehicles. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including gravel and soils, along with petroleum-based fuels to power construction machinery and vehicles. A highly competitive construction economy encourages the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction, to be cost effective and meet financial goals. The Project would not require any unique construction methods or materials that would consume nonrenewable resources in an unusually intensive manner.

Therefore, this Project is not expected to consume nonrenewable resources during construction in a wasteful or inefficient manner.

During operation, the proposed Project would commit energy for equipment and maintenance vehicles and water resources for trail maintenance for the long-term operation of the bike park. As previously stated, the Project Site would not be connected to any utilities and would not be supplied with electricity and water. All electricity used onsite would be provided by a generator and water would be delivered to the Project Site by water trucks. The consumption of energy in the form of petroleumbased fuels would be typical of similar mountain bike projects, and would not constitute a wasteful or inefficient method of consuming energy. Additionally, water resources are considered to be renewable through the natural hydrological cycle. Therefore, the Project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner, and impacts would be less than significant. 48 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2 (Mineral Resources) 49 California Department of Conservation, Well Finder CalGEM GIS, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/ wellfinder/, accessed March 6, 2024.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79 XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
This section is based, in part, on the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Vista Environmental, which is included as Appendix G of this IS/MND.50

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 50 Note that since the completion of the technical study in April 2024, the proposed Project, which was originally known as the “Blue Cloud Bike Project”, has been renamed “Haskell Canyon Bike Project” and some Project features have been reduced or are no longer part of the proposed Project. The Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. All parking surfaces would utilize decomposed granite rather than pavement. Thus, the analysis provided in the technical study is conservative due to the significant reduction of paving required during construction as well as the reduced Project features.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.

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 decibels to 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.

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 point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it 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 multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise dropoff rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.

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 has shown that the use of soft-site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.

EXISTING SETTING
To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the Project Site on March 26, 2024; refer to Table XIII-1, Noise Measurements. Noise within the Project area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the nearby roads and from dogs barking at the canine facilities (Cesar Milan’s Dog Psychology Center). _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81 Table XIII-1
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 Project Site,
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 Project Site 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 Project Site
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
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels, Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level Source: Vista Environmental; refer to Appendix G.

Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as natural-setting parks, historic sites, and cemeteries areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses.

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 that would be disturbed as part of the proposed Project. There are also single-family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas that would be disturbed as part of the proposed Project.
a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant. 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 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.

Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.080 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 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criteria thresholds have been utilized. Although the proposed Project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 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. Using the FTA standards, a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise would exceed 80 dBA at the nearest homes (i.e., a residential land use) and 85 dBA at the canine facilities (i.e., a commercial land use) to the east. The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table XIII-2.

Table XIII-2
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
Paving1 58 51 50
Architectural Coating 50 43 42
FTA Construction Noise Threshold 85 80 80
Exceed Threshold? No No No
1 Note that the paved parking surfaces originally proposed have been replaced with decomposed granite. Therefore, the noise results shown are conservative.

Source: Vista Environmental; refer to Appendix G
Table XIII-2 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 Section 11.44.080 of the Santa Clarita 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83 Operation-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 Projectgenerated 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 trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. Thus, the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts are 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 Santa Clarita Municipal Code defines what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels”. As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the FTA standards for a moderate impact which indicates that a project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, dependent on the existing roadway noise levels.

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 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 for music events or food trucks. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040 limits the Project’s operational noise at the nearby homes (i.e., a residential zone) to 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime and at the canine facilities (i.e., a commercial and manufacturing zone) 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 music associated with events at the bike park, reference noise measurements for similar operations were taken of each source and are shown in Table XIII-3. In order to determine the noise impacts from the off-road equipment, the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model was utilized, modeling a backhoe and small generator. All of the reference noise levels were calculated at the distances to the nearby receptors based on standard geometric spreading of _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 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 levels represent a worst-case as the noise calculations do not take account the hilly terrain of the Project Site or the sound reduction provided by the vegetation.

Table XIII-3
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 Lots2 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 Standards3 (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 G. 2 Note that the Haskell Core parking lot has been significantly reduced and the parking lot for the Blue Cloud Trailhead has been replaced with an unstructured parking area. Therefore, the noise results shown are conservative. 3 From Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code.

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

Table XIII-3 shows that the proposed Project’s worst-case (i.e., during an 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 Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 11.44.040. Therefore, operation 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.
b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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. r
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85 Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.15.050 limits vibration to what is perceptible at the boundary of the lot where it is created. However, Santa Clarita Municipal Code 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 is utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV).

The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a dozer. 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 within the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation-Related Vibration Impacts
The proposed Project would consist of the operation of a bike park. The ongoing 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. c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the response to Checklist Question XIII.a above, noise generated during Project construction and operation would be below applicable noise thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts on noise. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? f. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Agua Dulce Airpark, approximately 12.2 miles to the northeast.51 Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to airport-related safety hazards or excessive noise.
51 EPA, NEPAssist, https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx, accessed February 12, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The Project includes the construction of a bike park with parking and visitor amenities.

The proposed Project would not develop any housing or businesses on the Project Site that would generate residents or a substantial number of employment opportunities. Although a limited number of full- and part-time staff and volunteers would be required to maintain the bike park, it is expected that the staff and volunteers would be supplied by the existing regional workforce.

Thus, the Project would not result in a direct population growth.

The Project would utilize existing unpaved roads to access the Project Site. The Project is not anticipated to increase the population of the Project area as the bike park would generally serve the local community. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require any utility infrastructure; no lighting is proposed and the Project would not require any water or sewer infrastructure as the Project would include vault restrooms. Therefore, the Project would not result in indirect population growth due to the extension of roads or other infrastructure. As such, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project Site does not currently provide housing, and no persons reside onsite.

The Project would not construct any housing nor would the Project displace any people or housing. Thus, the Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a.i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita contracts with the LACoFD for urban and wildland fire protection services, fire prevention services, emergency medical services, hazardous materials services, and urban search and rescue services. LACoFD provides fire protection and life safety services to over four million residents within its jurisdiction of 60 incorporated cities and all 122 unincorporated areas of the County.52 LACoFD also operates as a unit of the CAL FIRE and has the responsibility of implementing California’s Strategic Fire Plan in Los Angeles County and addressing emergency operations, public service, and organizational effectiveness.53 The LACoFD participates in the Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid System based on a mutual aid agreement among emergency responders to provide assistance across jurisdictional boundaries, in cases where an emergency response exceeds capabilities of local resources.54 The nearest station to the Project Site is LACoFD Station 108, located at 28799 Rock 52 Los Angeles County Fire Department, 2021 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Annual Report, 2021. 53 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 54 County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Fire Department 2022 Strategic Fire Plan, 2021. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 Canyon Drive approximately 2.2 miles (driving distance) southwest of the proposed Haskell Bike Core and 4.1 miles (driving distance) southwest of the proposed Blue Cloud Trailhead.

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project Site is located within a VHFHSZ.55 The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City Building Codes, which includes showing proof through certification with the LACoFD that new development is located within a designated distance of a water source such as water supply tanks or retention basins for emergency firefighting purposes. Compliance with the Building Code also includes fire prevention such as the provision of access roads, adequate road widths, and clearance of brush around structures located in hillside areas that are considered primary wildland fire risk areas. The City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings.56 Additionally, as previously discussed, the parking lot for the Haskell Core would include space for emergency turnaround for firetrucks. These proposed Project features could improve emergency evacuation in the area. Similar to existing conditions, signage with rules and regulations for the park that state no smoking and no spark emitting equipment would be placed in various areas throughout the mountain bike park. Moreover, the City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire-related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the MRCA in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe.

The proposed Project would not construct any habitable structures or residences, or increase the population in the City. Thus, adequate fire protection services can be provided to the Project with the existing fire stations and facilities in the area. The Project is not anticipated to affect fire protection demands to the extent that new or physically altered fire facilities would be required.

Furthermore, in City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University Ruling (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution requires local agencies to provide public safety services, including fire protection, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the City would comply with that provision to ensure that public safety services are provided.57 Therefore, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant.
55 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, May 2022, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20-%20Safety%20Element.pdf, accessed February 13, 2024. 56 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Forestry Fuel Modification, https://fire.lacounty.gov/forestry-fuel-modification/ #1566437238201-d272ffef-2b3d, accessed March 12, 2024.
57 City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, 843, 847. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89 a.ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita is served by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), which covers a service area of 656 square miles. The LASD’s Santa Clarita Valley Station is located at 26201 Golden Valley Road and serves the Angeles National Forest, Bouquet Canyon, Canyon Country, Castaic, Gorman, Hasley Canyon, Newhall, Neenach, Sand Canyon, Santa Clarita, Saugus, Six Flags Magic Mountain, Sleepy Valley, Southern Oaks, Stevenson Ranch, Sunset Point, Tesoro del Valle, Valencia, Val Verde, West Hills, Westridge.

The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station serves an estimated resident population of 310,000 persons. The station has been staffed by 205 sworn personnel and 34 civilian employees, but staffing levels and standards vary based on needs, performance level, and service modeling.58 Average response times from the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station for the 2020-2021 fiscal year were 74.5 minutes for routine calls, 13.9 minutes for priority calls, and 6.45 minutes for emergency calls, which would be longer for routine calls and shorter for priority and emergency calls when compared to industry standards.59
The Project Site would continue to be served by the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station, which is approximately 10.1 miles (driving distance) south of the proposed Haskell Core and 10.4 miles (driving distance) south of the proposed Blue Cloud Trailhead. The proposed Project would not include development of residential or commercial uses that would result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site. During operation, the proposed Project would bring more individuals 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. Moreover, as discussed above in Checklist XV.a.i, it is reasonable to conclude that the City would comply with Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, which requires local agencies to provide sufficient public safety services, including police protection. Therefore, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant.
a.iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site that would generate a demand for schools. Therefore, no new or altered school facilities would be required. No impact would occur.
58 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. 59 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90 a.iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks? Less Than Significant Impact. According to Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section

17.51.010.E.(2), “it is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that a minimum of three (3) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within this City be devoted to neighborhood and community park recreational purposes.” The Santa Clarita Municipal Code acknowledges that, in the Conservation and Open Space Element, the City’s goal is to provide parks at a ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that the City offers approximately 1.5 to 2 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, with 246 acres of developed park space and about 173 acres of passive park land.60 The proposed Project is a mountain bike park development that would provide two activity/programming areas and approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the approximately 380-acre Project Site In addition, the Project would maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi-use trails. Thus, the proposed Project would improve parkland to resident ratio for the City. Although the proposed Project would require construction and operation that would result in impacts discussed throughout this IS/MND, there would be minimal physical alteration of the majority of the Project Site. Overall, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed Project does not include development of residential or commercial uses and would not result in the establishment of a permanent residential population on the Project Site that would generate a demand for other public facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities. No impact would occur.

XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
60 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 2011. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The western portion of the Project Site comprises open space with existing multi-use trails. The eastern portion of the Project Site is currently restricted to private use. The proposed Project would construct a mountain bike park with approximately 15 miles of trails and two activity/programming areas with a variety of visitor amenities. The proposed Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi-use trails. The proposed Project has the potential to increase the use of open space within Haskell Canyon through the operation of the proposed bike park as it is anticipated that more users would visit the area than under existing conditions. However, the bike park and existing and new trails would be maintained daily and monthly by staff, such that substantial physical deterioration of the Project Site would not occur or be accelerated. Moreover, the proposed bike park could decrease the use of other parks in the region with similar features. Thus, the Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project consists of the development of the proposed mountain bike park. As such, while the proposed Project would involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that may have the potential to result in an adverse physical effect on the environment, the Project has been evaluated in this IS/MND to determine whether physical impacts to the environment would occur, and mitigation measures have been identified, as appropriate, to reduce any such impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, the Project involves mitigation measures associated with reducing impacts to the environment, as identified in: Section IV. Biological Resources; Section V. Cultural Resources; Section IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Noise; Section X.

Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section XX. Wildfire. Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of this IS/MND would reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located on land designated as Open Space and Rural Land 10, and is currently vacant and undeveloped except for several LADWP transmission towers and dirt access paths/trails. The Project Site does not include any transit stops or designated pedestrian or bicycle paths.61,62 The Project Site has existing multi-use trails and would propose additional multi-use trails, which would provide for more connectivity in the area. Additionally, the Project Site would not intersect any highways, freeways, or conflict with any intersections or streets. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant.
61 City of Santa Clarita, Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, 2020. 62 City of Santa Clarita, Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Recommendations, 2020.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93 b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, dated May 19, 2020, if a project meets at least one of three screening criteria, a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis would not be required. Under the project size screening criterion, projects that generate less than 110 daily trips may be screened from conducting a VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The proposed Project would construct an approximately 380-acre mountain bike park with approximately 15 miles of new trails. In addition, the Project would maintain and connect to approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi-use trails.

Conservatively assuming a worst-case week in the summer with one Summer Series weekday event with 100 vehicles, two weekend peak days with 100 vehicles per day, and four weekdays with 20 vehicles per day, the Project would generate an average of 108.6 daily trips on a worstcase week.63 As such, the Project would generate less than 110 daily trips and is screened from conducting a VMT analysis. Therefore, Project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be designed to maximize safety by adhering to established design and engineering standards for the proposed programming areas and for the multi-use trails. The proposed Project would designate trails with appropriate signage to protect private properties and park visitors. Moreover, public parks and trails are permitted uses for the Project Site. Therefore, based on the above, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core programming area would include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Moreover, existing fire roads within the Project Site could be used for emergency access. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.
63 200 trips (Summer Series Weekday) + 400 trips (2 Weekend Peak Days) + 160 trips (4 Weekday Peak with 40 trips per day) = 760 total trips per week.
760 total trips per week / 7 days per week = 108.5 trips per day _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above for Checklist Question V.a, and evaluated in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D of this IS/MND), cultural resources located within the study area include one previously recorded historic period domestic site (CA-LAN-3132H) comprising concrete structure pads and domestic debris and one newly recorded historic mining site (BlueCloud-MBI-01H) consisting of the remnants of the Blue Cloud Dust Mine that operated from around 1952 until 2016. Both sites identified are not _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
95 associated with a California Native American tribe and do not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register. Thus, neither site is considered a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. Additionally, a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was completed for the Project area with negative results.

In compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires tribal consultation as part of the CEQA process, the City initiated consultation in April 2024 with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). A record of the City’s communication and consultation efforts with the FTBMI are provided in Appendix H of this IS/MND. Based on consultation with the FTBMI, which concluded on April 18, 2025, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 would be incorporated to reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less-thansignificant-level.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

Mitigation Measure 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 ensure 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
96 Mitigation Measure 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 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.

Mitigation Measure 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.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
97 Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed Project would include vault restrooms that would be serviced weekly.

It is anticipated that the waste collected from the vault restrooms would be disposed of at the Saugus or Valencia Water Reclamation Plants, which are operated by Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. Since there are only three vault restrooms proposed for the Project Site, it is anticipated that the reclamation plants would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. Additionally, the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District must comply with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant. b. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by any water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. While the proposed Project would construct a J-drain with 2 culverts and a concrete v-ditch to convey drainage flows in the Haskell Core, the proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to storm water drainage facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require connections to water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Moreover, the proposed Project would not interfere with the existing LADWP transmission towers, and thus, would not require relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
98 c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by any stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed Project would not construct any structures that would require connections to stormwater drainage facilities. The drainage devices that would be installed as part of the Project would drain directly into the Haskell Canyon creek. Thus, the Project would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage stormwater facilities or expansion of facilities, and no impact would occur.
d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not currently served by the City’s water service provider, the Santa Clarita Water Division of the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water).

The proposed Project, including the vault restrooms, would not require connections to water distribution facilities. Additionally, due to the nominal amount of water required for Project maintenance, it is expected that SCV Water would have sufficient supplies to serve the Project and that water could be purchased for maintenance purposes. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements would be needed. As such, Project impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the most recently available information from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2019, the City of Santa Clarita disposed of approximately 206,278 tons of solid waste at a solid waste facility, 16 tons at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (a transformation facility), and 812 tons of alternative daily cover.64 Of the 16 facilities that received waste from the City, five facilities that accept both construction and demolition waste and municipal solid waste received more than 1,000 tons of waste, including those within and outside Los Angeles County: Antelope Valley Public Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, Lost Hills Environmental Waste Facility, Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center; and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill. Based on the latest available remaining permitted disposal capacity information, as provided by the Los Angeles County Countywide Disposal Rate and Assessment of Disposal Capacity 2022 Annual Report, the Antelope Valley Public Landfill has a remaining permitted disposal capacity of 8.5 million tons and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill has a remaining permitted disposal capacity of 51.7 million tons.65
64 CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility, Year 2019, Jurisdiction: Los Angeles–Santa Clarita, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/ DisposalByFacility, accessed March 13, 2024; alternative daily cover refers to cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. 65 Los Angeles County, Countywide Disposal Rate and Assessment Capacity 2022 Annual Report, Appendix D, https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=17632&hp=yes&type=PDF, accessed March 13, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99 The proposed Project would not require any demolition, and thus would generate a small amount of waste from construction activities, such as vegetation from site clearing. During operation, the proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of waste from users of the park, workers, and volunteers, with additional waste during event days.66 It is anticipated that Project-generated waste would continue to be accepted by the same multiple refuse disposal facilities that currently receive the City’s municipal solid wastes, including those identified above. Based on the total capacity of 109.5 million tons from the three aforementioned landfills, the Project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s construction and operational waste disposal needs, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. All non-hazardous solid waste generated from the Project Site (e.g., plastic and glass bottles and jars, paper, newspaper, metal containers, cardboard) would be recycled per local and state regulations, with a diversion goal of 75 percent, in compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. Remaining non-hazardous solid waste would be disposed of at one of the nearby landfills. The City would review building plans and ensure that adequate space is set aside to allow for the collection and storage of recyclable materials on the Project Site prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
66 According to generation rates provided by CalRecycle (https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates) , the closest use to the proposed Project would be public/institutional. Public/institutional uses generate approximately 0.007 lb/sq ft/day. The proposed Project would develop 15 miles of trails that would be a maximum of 6 feet wide. Thus, the proposed Project would generate 0.63 pounds of waste per day (15 miles x 6 feet = 90 square feet; 90 x 0.07 = 0.63 lbs/sq ft/day). _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
100
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The eastern portion of the Project Site outside of the City’s boundaries has been designated by CALFIRE as a VHFHSZ within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The western portion of the Project Site within the City’s boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in Checklist Question IX.g, emergency response and evacuation for the Project Site is governed by the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, in the event of evacuations, LACoFD directs LASD regarding areas that need to be evacuated. That information is then shared with the City's Emergency Operations Center, and emergency notification is then conveyed to residents.67 Construction activities associated with the Project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation as emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained. During operation, an emergency could require partial or total evacuation of the Project Site and/or sheltering in place for some portions of the Project Site. The City has established an emergency response protocol to ensure public safety in the event of a wildfire or other emergency at the Project Site. City staff would coordinate a swift and orderly evacuation, directing visitors out through the main access point while keeping the route clear for emergency responders. The City would also work closely with LACoFD for fire-related emergencies, LASD for search and rescue operations, and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) in cases involving enforcement issues. To reduce risk and avoid emergency evacuations whenever possible, the Project Site would be proactively closed during periods of severe weather conditions. City staff would also monitor official weather and fire alerts and post clear signage and online notifications in advance of any closure to keep the public informed and safe. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.7 for the provision of adequate access roads and parking facilities to prevent congestion of public roads, to permit adequate means of egress for evacuation of the public in event of emergency, and to permit movement of fire apparatus and equipment. The proposed parking lot for the Haskell Core would also include space for emergency turnaround for fire trucks. Thus, the proposed Project would not preclude the City from implementing the Emergency Operations Plan, General Plan Safety Element, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would not preclude LACoFD from 67 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, 2022. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
101
implementing their latest Strategic Plan.68 Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA and the western portion of the Project Site within the City’s boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Santa Clarita Valley is susceptible to wildland fires because of its hilly terrain, dry weather conditions, and vegetation.

Steep slopes allow for the quick spread of flames during fires and late summer and fall months are critical times of the year when the Santa Ana winds deliver hot, dry desert air into the region.

Highly flammable plant communities consisting of variable mixtures of woody shrubs and herbaceous species, such as chaparral and sage vegetation, allow fires to spread easily on hillsides and in canyons. The proposed Project would construct a mountain bike park in an area characterized by mountainous and hilly terrain. As previously discussed, the existing slope of the Project Site ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi-use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. Additionally, the Project Site includes highly flammable plant communities, including chaparral and sage.

As discussed in Checklist Question IX.h, the proposed Project would require construction and operation within a VHFHSZ. While construction equipment would be equipped with a spark arrester as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Code Section 326.12.1, construction activities could still accidentally spark a fire and could exacerbate wildfire risks. Additionally, Project operation would bring more visitors to the Project Site than under existing conditions, especially during event days; visitors could be in the park while a nearby wildfire is happening.

While the Project operations would not exacerbate wildfire risk, the proposed Project could expose visitors to wildfire risks due to the location and condition of the Project Site, as well as to pollutant concentrations from a nearby wildfire. Therefore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, which includes the establishment of fuel modification zones, would be required to reduce impacts related to wildfire risks to a less-than-significant level. c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA. The Project Site is not currently served by any water sources, power lines, or other utilities. The proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities. Additionally, the City would submit 90 percent Project plans to the Fuel Modification Unit of LACoFD for review in 68 Los Angeles County Fire Department, 2017-2021 Strategic Plan, https://fire.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/09/LACoFD-Strategic-Plan-2017-2021.pdf, accessed March 19, 2024. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
102
accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.020. The Fuel Modification Unit approval consists of reviewing aspects such as structure location and type of construction, topography, slope, amount and arrangement of vegetation and overall site settings. With approval from the Fuel Modification Unit, impacts related to exacerbating fire risk would be minimized.

Lastly, the proposed Project would not interfere with existing LADWP transmission towers, and thus, would not require relocation of any electrical facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the eastern portion of the Project Site has been designated as a VHFHSZ within a SRA and western portion of the Project Site within the City’s boundaries is also within a VHFHSZ but in a Local Responsibility Area. As discussed in Checklist Question VII.a.iv, the Project Site is within a landslide zone. The topography of the Project Site is characterized by hills, mountains, valleys, and ridges. The existing slope ranges from 5 percent near the Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead up to 100 percent where existing and proposed multi-use trails are located on the northern and southern portions of the site. The last wildfire near the Project Site was the Buckweed Fire in 2007, which burned 38,000 acres and resulted in 63 lost structures and 1 injury.69 Thus, the Project Site would not expose people or structures to risks involving flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire slope instability.

Additionally, as discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would not result in substantial changes related to drainage and would not substantially alter or redirect flood flows as the proposed Project would involve minimal development and would generally follow the existing contours of the slopes for areas at higher elevations. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
69 City of Santa Clarita, 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
103
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Explanation of Checklist Responses
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Question IV.a, native vegetation communities within the Project Site have a moderate or high potential to support three special-status plant species: club-haired mariposa-lily, slender mariposa-lily, and short-jointed beavertail. Additionally, vegetation communities have a low potential to support three special-status plant species: Nevins barberry, Catalina mariposa lily, and island mountain-mahogany. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requiring a rare plant survey would reduce impacts related to special-status plants to a less-than-significant level.

As discussed in Checklist Question IV.a, the Project Site has a moderate or high potential to support four special-status wildlife species: southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell’s sparrow, coastal whiptail, and coast horned lizard. In addition, the Project Site has a low potential to support nine special-status wildlife species: grasshopper sparrow, California legless lizard, California glossy snake, Crotch’s bumble bee, Swainson’s hawk, Townsend’s big-eared bat, white-tailed kite, spotted bat, and western spadefoot. Additionally, one special-status wildlife species was observed during the field survey: Lawrence’s goldfinch. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 through Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce impacts related to special-status wildlife to a less-than-significant level.

As discussed in Checklist Section V, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no related impacts would occur. With regard to archaeological resources, there is low sensitivity for significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Site. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is included to require the proper handling and disposition of archaeological resources in the unexpected event that such resources are inadvertently discovered during Project construction. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
104
ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. In addition, as discussed in Checklist Section XVIII, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through Mitigation Measure TCR-5 would be incorporated to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a lessthan-significant-level.

As discussed in Checklist Question VII.j, while fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Project area, the proposed Project would not require ground disturbance at depths greater than four feet for the footers for the bike courses.

Other construction activities, including construction of the proposed bike courses and trails, would take place within previously disturbed fill sediments (e.g., clearing and grubbing) or at the current topsoil surface and do not require ground disturbance in undisturbed geologic contexts. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource. Therefore, impacts related to unique geologic features or paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Based on the analysis in this IS/MND, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance related to degradation of the quality of the environment, substantial reduction in the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatening to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduction in the number or restriction of the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects? Less Than Significant Impact. The City has one development project within an approximately 2-mile radius of the Project Site. The project nearest to the Project Site is the Bouquet Canyon Project, which has received entitlement approvals for 375 residential units (1 mile southwest of the Project Site).

In contrast with the residential development, the Project proposes a bike park with minimal development. In addition, due to the distance from the one development, the physical and sitespecific conditions of the Project Site, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, the Project would not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, the Project is not expected to induce any growth in the region as the Project would not develop housing and would utilize employees from the Project region. Moreover, as detailed in the preceding sections, the Project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. The Project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address environmental factors such as air quality, energy, GHG emissions, transportation, utilities, and other applicable regulations that have been adopted by public agencies. In many cases, including aesthetics, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards, land use, mineral resources, noise, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire, the impacts associated with the Project are either localized to the Project Site or are of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable) and the Project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
105
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Checklist Sections I through XX of this document, the Project has been determined to have no impacts, less-than-significant impacts, and impacts that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and the impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

This page intentionally left blank.

Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
>ĞĂĚŐĞŶĐǇ͗ ŝƚǇŽĨ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌŝƚĂ
ϮϯϵϮϬsĂůĞŶĐŝĂŽƵůĞǀĂƌĚ͕
^ƵŝƚĞϭϮϬ
^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌŝƚĂ͕ϵϭϯϱϱ
;ϲϲϭͿϮϴϰͲϭϰϭϰ
ŽŶƚĂĐƚ͗ŵďĞƌZŽĚƌŝŐƵĞǌ
WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇ͗
ϯϳϲϬ<ŝůƌŽǇŝƌƉŽƌƚtĂǇ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϳϬ
>ŽŶŐĞĂĐŚ͕ϵϬϴϬϲ
KĨĨŝĐĞ͗;ϱϲϮͿϮϬϬͲϳϭϲϱ
MAY 2025

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

APPENDICES
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX A:

AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE

GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS

AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS

SANTA CLARITA BLUE CLOUD BIKE PARK PROJECT

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Lead Agency:

City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd #302
Valencia, CA 91355
Prepared by:

Vista Environmental
1021 Didrickson Way
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949 510 5355
Greg Tonkovich, AICP
Project No. 23002
April 17, 2024
Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives................................................................................. 1

1.2 Site Locations and Study Area.................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 3

2.0 Air Pollutants........................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors.................................................................................. 6

2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Global Warming Potential........................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory...................................................................................... 13

4.0 Air Quality Management ....................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 14

4.2 State – California Air Resources Board .................................................................................... 17

4.3 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 18

4.4 Local – City of Santa Clarita...................................................................................................... 21

5.0 Energy Conservation Management........................................................................................ 22

5.1 State ......................................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Local ‐ City of Santa Clarita ...................................................................................................... 24

6.0 Global Climate Change Management..................................................................................... 26

6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 26

6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 26

6.3 State ......................................................................................................................................... 27

6.4 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 32

5.5 Local – City of Santa Clarita...................................................................................................... 33

7.0 Atmospheric Setting .............................................................................................................. 37

7.1 South Coast Air Basin............................................................................................................... 37

7.2 Local Climate............................................................................................................................ 37

7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality..................................................................................................... 38

7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels................................................................................................... 40

8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions................................................................................. 42

8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters ........................................................................................ 42

8.2 Energy Use Calculations........................................................................................................... 45 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

9.0 Thresholds of Significance...................................................................................................... 49

9.1 Regional Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 49

9.2 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 49

9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................................................ 50

9.4 Odor Impacts............................................................................................................................ 50

9.5 Energy Conservation................................................................................................................ 50

9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................... 51

10.0 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 52

10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 52

10.2 Air Quality Compliance .......................................................................................................... 52

10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non‐Attainment Pollution ......................................................... 54

10.4 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................ 58

10.5 Odor Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 59

10.6 Energy Consumption.............................................................................................................. 60

10.7 Energy Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 64

10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 65

10.9 Greenhouse Gas Plan Consistency......................................................................................... 66

11.0 References............................................................................................................................. 73

APPENDICES
Appendix A – CalEEMod Model Printouts
Appendix B – EMFAC2021 Model Printouts
Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Proposed Site Plan and Study Area.............................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs......................... 12 Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards........................................................................... 14 Table C – National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin ............................... 16 Table D – California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin .............. 17 Table E – Monthly Climate Data for Newhall Station ................................................................................. 38 Table F – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary............................................................................... 39 Table G – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters................................................................................................. 42 Table H – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project........ 46 Table I – On‐Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project....... 47 Table J – Off‐Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Operation of the Proposed Project.............. 48 Table K – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance................................. 49 Table L – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ................................................................ 50 Table M – Construction‐Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................... 55 Table N – Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................................... 55 Table O – Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies............................ 64 Table P – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions ................................................................... 65 Table Q – Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan .................................................................................... 66 Table R – Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020.................................................................................. 70 Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Page iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB   Assembly Bill
Air Basin South Coast Air Basin
AQMP   Air Quality Management Plan
BACT   Best Available Control Technology
BSFC   Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
CAAQS   California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA   California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB   California Air Resources Board
CEC   California Energy Commission
CEQA   California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs   chlorofluorocarbons
Cf4   tetrafluoromethane
C2F6   hexafluoroethane
CH4   Methane
CO   Carbon monoxide
CO2   Carbon dioxide
CO2e   Carbon dioxide equivalent
City   City of Santa Clarita
DPM   Diesel particulate matter
EPA   Environmental Protection Agency
ºF   Fahrenheit
FTIP   Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GHG   Greenhouse gas
GWP   Global warming potential
HAP   Hazardous Air Pollutants
HFCs   Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC   International Panel on Climate Change
kWhr   kilowatt‐hour
LCFS   Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Page v
LST   Localized Significant Thresholds
MATES   Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO   Metropolitan Planning Organization
MWh   Megawatt‐hour
NAAQS   National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx   Nitrogen oxides
NO2   Nitrogen dioxide
OPR   Office of Planning and Research
Pfc   Perfluorocarbons
PM   Particle matter
PM10   Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5   Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPM   Parts per million
PPB   Parts per billion
PPT   Parts per trillion
RTIP   Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB   Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG   Southern California Association of Governments
SF6   Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP   State Implementation Plan
SOx   Sulfur oxides
TAC   Toxic air contaminants
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC   Volatile organic compounds

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Page 1 ends

Santa Clarita City CouncilJuly 14, 2026

Santa Clarita City Council
July 14, 2026