Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 18 089 BOUQUET CANYON PROJ (2)Agenda Item: 11 P CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:1 DATE: November 10, 2020 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126; INITIAL STUDY 18-002; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2018121009 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Receive the staff report, presentation, and conduct the public hearing. 2. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2018121009) prepared for the Bouquet Canyon Project through the adoption of a resolution, which includes the California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Findings, associated documents, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Master Case 18-089: Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126, and the Final Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITION The Bouquet Canyon Project (Project) is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City of Santa Clarita (City), on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road, Page 1 Packet Pg. 172 and south of Copper Hill Drive. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course known as Bouquet Creek flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. The total development footprint, which includes off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. The site consists of nine parcels: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2812-008-003, -008, -013, - 021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812-022-031. There is a 2.74-acre parcel that is opposite Fan Court, owned by another party, and developed with a single-family residence, near the western site boundary, that is not part of the Project site. The Project includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road along the eastern portion of the Project site, to follow the general alignment identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. Bouquet Canyon Road is designated as a Major Highway south of Plum Canyon Road and a Secondary Highway north of Plum Canyon Road on the City's General Plan Circulation Map. The segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, south of Plum Canyon Road, is four lanes and narrows to two lanes as it loops around the Project site, north of Plum Canyon Road. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Rddgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Total relief across the site is 165 feet, with a high elevation of 1,530 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the ridgeline and a low elevation of 1,365 feet AMSL in a flat area along Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Benz Road on the western portion of the Project site. Elevations in the eastern interior area and in the creek floodplain range between 1,390 and 1,400 feet AMSL. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. The entire reach of Bouquet Creek through the site has been mapped as a floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the main drainage course classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone. The Bouquet Creek streambed enters the Project area at the northeastern boundary and exits at the northwestern boundary. The drainage continues under the existing Bouquet Canyon Road at the northwestern corner of the study area boundary, where the drainage has been channelized. The Bouquet Canyon drainage is a tributary to the Santa Clara River. INITIAL APPLICATION On May 1, 2018, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC (applicant), submitted an application to allow for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project. The original application included a subdivision of 70 lots and the development of 461 residential units located in five planning areas. The architectural designs of the units included two- and three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding residents and comments from staffs initial review, the applicant decided to decrease the proposed number of units from 461 to 375 and lower the heights of the homes to two -stories, as described in the Project Description section of this report. Staff processed the application which included several Development Review Committee meetings with City staff and four Planning Commission meetings on the Project on June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020 (continuance), August 18, 2020 (continuance), and October 6, 2020. Page 2 Packet Pg. 173 P UBLIC O UTREACH On December 3, 2018, the applicant sent letters to 138 residents within the vicinity of the Project site and posted on the Nextdoor website. The applicant conducted a public outreach meeting on December 19, 2018. Approximately 25 residents were in attendance. Some of the concerns identified at this meeting were privacy, traffic patterns, new homes looking down on the existing homes, and power lines undergrounded. The applicant intended to host subsequent public outreach meetings within the community; however, due to COVID-19 measures, the outreach strategy had to change from in -person public meetings to individual outreach. The applicant mailed out notices on May 22, 2020, and offered to meet or has met directly with residents. GENERAL PLAN, ZONING AND SURROUNDING USES Land use on the Project site is governed by the City's General Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC). In the General Plan Land Use Element, the Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones, with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multiple -family (multifamily) dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site that are designated as OS and PI zones would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Project site is listed as a Suitable Site (Housing Site 2) in the Housing Element of the General Plan. A Suitable Site is a site that may be feasibly developed for housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The site is listed as suitable for very low- and low- income units. The following table provides a summary of the immediate surrounding areas of the Project site: Summary of Surrounding Area General Plan Zone Land Use Project Site UR2, UR5, CN, UR2, UR5, CN, Proposed 375 residential units in OS, and PI OS, and PI five Planning Areas North UR2, UR5, and UR2, UR5, and Single-family homes and Bouquet OS OS Creek South UR2 and OS UR2 and OS Vacant open space East UR2 and PI UR2 and PI Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott and single-family homes Page 3 Packet Pg. 174 West UR2, OS, and CN UR21 OS, and CN Canyon Center, neighborhood commercial center, and single- family homes The Project site is located in an area where numerous neighborhoods of single-family homes have been developed, to the north, west, and south. Scattered homes and equestrian facilities are found north and northeast, in a rural setting. The Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott occupies a large site immediately to the east. Undeveloped slopes separate the Project site from single-family neighborhoods to the south. There is a triangular -shaped neighborhood commercial center (Canyon Center) just to the south, along the east side of Bouquet Canyon Road. There is another commercial center farther south, at the corner of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road (Plum Commerce Center). PROJECT SUMMARY The Project consists of the development of a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units located within five distinct neighborhoods (Planning Areas). The residential community includes six entry gates, related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements on approximately 74.66 acres of undeveloped land. The Project includes roadway improvements and a new drainage system. The Project would require alteration of a significant ridgeline for the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element objectives. Roadway improvements also include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Avenue, the closure of the southern portion of David Way for the extension of Copper Hill Drive, and removal of the bridge over Bouquet Creek in order to construct a linear park. The Project includes the construction of a new drainage channel that runs parallel to Bouquet Creek and the restoration and revegetation of the existing Bouquet Creek into a low - flow drainage channel. The Project would require approximately two million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site. The Project would require the removal of up to 26 non - heritage -sized oak trees and the major encroachment of one oak tree. PLANNING AREA SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a private, on -site vehicle circulation network to provide access to homes within each Planning Area (PA). The Planning Areas are illustrated in the Site Plan (included in the City Clerk's reading file) and are summarized as follows: Summary of Planning Areas Planning Area Building Square Feet Units Type PA-1 127,381 52 Single -Family Detached PA-lA 29,368 12 Single -Family Detached PA-2 221,148 136 Single -Family Detached/8-Pack Cluster PA-3 148,050 90 Attached Backyard Towns PA-4 122,540 85 Attached Rowtowns Total: 648,487 SF 375 units Page 4 Packet Pg. 175 Planning Area 1 (PA-1): Single -Family Detached PA-1 is located on the western side of the Project site and is divided into two sections. The northern section consists of nine units with a proposed gated entry and cul-de-sac that provides access from the existing Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Pam Court. The southern section consists of 43 units with access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. A proposed two-lane street would be located between PA-2 and PA-3, from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Two gated entries would be located at the end of the street granting access to the southern section of PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3. A gated, emergency egress is also located at the southern section of PA-1 to the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 2,447 square feet. Three plans are proposed with 3 to 5 bedrooms and 3 to 5 baths, with approximately 2,307 to 2,543 square feet of living area. Planning Area IA (PA -IA): Single -Family Detached PA -IA is located on the southern side of the Project site and directly east of the Canyon Center commercial center. A proposed gated entry and cul-de-sac are located immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial center to provide access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. PA -IA consists of 12 units. The homes would be designed similar to the homes in PA-1. Planning Area 2 (PA-2): Single -Family Detached/Eight-Pack Cluster PA-2 is located on the center of the Project site and would be accessed through the proposed two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-2 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-3. PA-2 consists of 136 units. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, generally in clusters of eight units (with varying configurations), with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 1,635 square feet. Four plans are proposed, with 3 to 4 bedrooms and 2 to 3 baths, with approximately 1,498 to 1,801 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 3 (PA-3): Attached Backyard Towns PA-3 is located on the southern side of the Project site and would be accessed through the proposed two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-3 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-2. PA-3 consists of 90 units. The homes would be designed as two-story, townhome structures with attached, two -car garages, in groups of three attached homes, arranged around a common driveway, and including private backyards. Three plans are proposed, with 3 to 4 bedrooms and three baths, with approximately 1,606 to 1,679 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 4 (PA-4): Attached Rowtowns with Carriage Units PA-4 is located on the northern side of the Project site. Two driveways along the existing Bouquet Canyon Road would provide access to PA-4. Entry gates are not proposed for PA-4. PA-4 consists of 85 units. The homes would be designed as two-story, townhome structures, with four to seven attached homes in each "row." Each home would have its own attached, two - car garage. Four plans are proposed, with 1 to 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths, and approximately 721 to 1,521 square feet of total living area. Page 5 Packet Pg. 176 ADDITIONAL PROJECT COMPONENTS Parking The Project includes a total of 982 parking spaces: 740 resident garage spaces (2 spaces per unit), 213 guest parking spaces located throughout each Planning Area, and 29 trailhead parking spaces. Of the 242 guest and trailhead parking spaces, 213 are standard spaces, 11 are accessible, and 18 are fuel -efficient, low -emitting, carpool/vanpool. A Condition of Approval was added to require that the applicant install a minimum of six fully -operational electric vehicle (EV) charging stations (two of which are van accessible) with three stations (including one van accessible) located in the trailhead parking lot and three stations (including one van accessible) located adjacent to the trailhead. As proposed, the Project would meet the parking requirements established in Chapter 17.42 of the UDC. A subsequent Development Review is required for each PA and the parking would be further analyzed at that time. The Project also includes 68 bicycle parking spaces that would be designed as bike racks located on or near the park areas throughout the Project site. Outdoor Amenities A variety of private and public amenities are included in the Project and is illustrated in the Park Exhibit (included in the City Clerk's reading file). A landscaping program is proposed, including community open spaces, street trees and parkways, recreational turf areas, native and manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, creek riparian enhancements, stormwater management and private yards. The amenities are summarized as follows: Recreation center and private park areas: One private recreation center in PA-1 with a recreation building, in -ground swimming pool and spa, outdoor deck, barbeques, shade structure, spaces for social gatherings, and restrooms/changing areas. Two private, open turf/play areas are also proposed as outdoor amenities within PA-2. A splash pad, which is a water feature/play area for families, is included and would be located at Pocket Park 6 in PA-2. In addition, the Project is conditioned to require the installation of a tot lot on the Project site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Public parks: A linear public park that includes turf areas, ornamental landscape elements, a tot lot, and seating areas, is proposed within the segment of Bouquet Canyon Road that is to be closed, between Hob Avenue and Pam Court. The proposed trail would lead up to another public park (Park 2) that includes a pet waste station, benches, trash receptacles, and a shade structure located on the top of the knoll. There are an additional two public park areas along the trail within PA-4. The Project is conditioned to require the applicant to construct a pedestrian bridge across the proposed drainage channel to provide an additional connection between Park 1 and Park 3. Trails and Pedestrian Bridge: An interconnected public walking trail network is proposed around the Project site perimeter, behind (south edge of) PA-4, through PA-1, and around and up to the top of the hill formation in the western part of the site. The trail network would provide views of the open space along the drainage zone of Bouquet Creek and walking access along and to the park area on the knolltop. The proposed trail network would also connect to the Proposed Class I trail along Alaminos Drive, through Hob Avenue, and into the proposed linear park and to the County Trail System on the east side of the Project site. The Project also includes a multi -use Class I trail from the Project site to the Haskell Canyon Open Space along Copper Hill Drive. A pedestrian bridge would Page 6 Packet Pg. 177 be constructed across the proposed drainage channel to provide an additional trail connection between Park 1 and Park 3. Trailhead: A public parking lot with 29 parking spaces and adjacent open turf areas is proposed along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, between the east edge of PA- 3 and the eastern end of the new drainage channel, near the northeast corner of the site. This trailhead would grant public access to the on -site public trail network. Gating The Project includes a total of six gates in five locations. The plan is illustrated in the Gating Plan (included in the City Clerk's reading file) and summarized as follows: • Gate A: Two gates from the main driveway entrance of the south section of PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. • Gate B: One gate from the driveway entrance of the north section PA-1 off of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road. • Gate C: One gate from the driveway entrance of PA-2 and PA-3, adjacent to the trailhead parking lot, off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. • Gate D: One gate from the driveway entrance of PA -IA off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. • Gate E: One gate from the driveway entrance of the south section of PA-1 off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Oak Trees The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, varying in size, species, and health according to the Oak Tree Report conducted in June 2020. No heritage oak trees were identified on site. Two Blue Oak trees were identified on site. As part of the Project, up to 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees would be removed and would either replaced on -site or required to pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Oak Tree Fund as required by the UDC. The remaining 38 oak trees would be saved (1 oak tree with major encroachment and 37 oak trees with minor encroachments or avoided completely). The applicant conducted a subsequent analysis and modified their projections to include the removal of 15 non -heritage -sized oak trees and encroachments to 4 oak trees, thereby saving a total of 49 oak trees. The Project is conditioned to require an addendum to the Oak Tree Report, prior to any encroachments or removals, and additional justification materials for review, prior to any removals of the Blue Oak trees. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Bouquet Canyon Road Realignment and Roadway Improvements The portion of Bouquet Canyon Road that runs along the Project site is classified as a Secondary Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed realignment would be constructed as a four -lane roadway for a road segment from approximately 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road, just past the Plum Commerce Center, to approximately 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane in accordance with the Circulation Element objectives for this major travel route. The new road segment would include Class 11 Bike Lanes and parkways on both sides. A portion of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road would be abandoned, between Hob Avenue and Pam Court. This would require the removal of the existing bridge over Bouquet Creek. The Page 7 Packet Pg. 178 vacation of segments of David Way and Bouquet Canyon Road and the extension of Copper Hill Drive would allow for additional park area at the former intersection. Other intersections and improvements are summarized as follows: David Way and Existing Bouquet Canyon East Realignment: Remove existing traffic signal; close the southern portion of David Way (between existing Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive); construct a new east leg at David Way at Copper Hill Drive intersection and connect to existing Bouquet Canyon Road Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive: Construct median island to restrict left -turn movement (northbound left) from Benz Road to Copper Hill Drive New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing_Bouquet Canyon East: Installation Canyon East: Installation of a traffic signal In addition, the Project would be responsible for its fair -share of the cost of the improvements in the immediate area at the following locations: • Bouquet Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road • New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing Bouquet Canyon Road West • Kathleen Avenue and Copper Hill Drive • Golden Valley Road and Plum Canyon Road • Seco Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road • Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road • Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road • New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing Bouquet Canyon Road East (Copper Hill Drive) Bouquet Creek Bouquet Creek flows east to west through the northern edge of the Project site between PA-2 and PA-4. Construction of a new drainage channel is proposed to run parallel to Bouquet Creek, designed to contain 100-year and other higher intensity storm flows. This channel would be constructed as a trapezoidal -shape with reinforced concrete embankments. Access roads would be built along both sides to facilitate regular and emergency maintenance operations. In addition, Bouquet Creek would be restored and revegetated in the form of a low -flow drainage channel. This channel will be 30 feet wide and will run parallel to the main flow channel. A request was made by the Planning Commission to have the applicant contact SCV Water. The applicant initiated contact in May 2020. The applicant submitted a memo by Thomas Harder & Co., dated July 28, 2020, that presented the results of a hydrological investigation of groundwater recharge within the Project site with the purpose of addressing the concerns referenced in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) comment letter, dated June 3, 2020, from SCV Water. SCV Water staff reviewed the analysis and met with the applicant on September 23, 2020, and determined that the analysis provided a satisfactory answer to the agency's original comment on the Project; that the Project would maintain approximately the same level of recharge compared to existing conditions. SCV Water recognizes the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife currently maintain jurisdiction over this waterway. Nevertheless, SCV Water indicated their preference for the natural river and Page 8 Packet Pg. 179 stream bottom as an important source of groundwater recharge. SCV Water stated in a written comment card, dated October 6, 2020, to the Planning Commission that the agency "appreciates the project's proponents conducting a study to address our concern regarding the potential impacts on groundwater recharge. The Agency acknowledges that the study does indicate that the project would result in maintaining approximately the same levels of recharge compared to existing conditions. The Agency, nevertheless, remains concerned with the precedent that creating a concrete lined channel might set as river and tributary stream bottoms are an important source of groundwater recharge." GRADING The grading plan would involve an estimated excavation (cut) of 2,069,664 cubic yards and an embankment (fill) of 2,052,237 cubic yards. The total development footprint, including off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. All earthwork would be balanced on site. No import or export of earth will be required as proposed. As proposed, the Project includes grading within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone. The ridgeline, located east of existing Bouquet Canyon Road, runs from the northwest quadrant of the property in a southerly direction to the southwest quadrant of the property and continues beyond the Project site to the south. The City's design criteria for arterial roadways limit both the steepness and curve radii of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. As a result, there is a cut depth of over 100 feet required in order to construct the alignment. The combination of depth of cut, width of the roadway (four lanes plus parkways), and 2:1 slopes adjacent to the roadway would result in an major alteration to the existing ridgeline; therefore, an approval by City Council is required. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscape and soften views to the public. Additional grading would create building pads for units within PA-1. Grading would comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC and blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS The Project will require the approval of the following entitlements: Architectural Design Review 18-010 An Architectural Design Review (ADR) is required for the proposed building design, styles, and forms to ensure that the proposed architecture complies with all of the provisions of the Section 17.51.020 of the UDC and the General Plan, and to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. Additional ADRs, would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the product complies and is consistent with the proposed architecture of the Project. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for gating of private roadways, multifamily development in the CN zone, and to allow for Cluster Development. In accordance with Section 17.66.050 of the UDC, gating of private roadways serving more than five single-family units or more than 15 multifamily units requires a CUP and is subject to the residential gating standards. A CUP is required to allow for a multifamily development in the CN zone and subject to the Section 17.57.030 Multifamily Development Standards of the UDC. Page 9 Packet Pg. 180 A CUP is also required for the cluster development of the Project and subject to the requirements established in Section 17.68.020 Cluster Developments. This would allow for a concentration of residential units and reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Over three acres of land is dedicated for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, and over eight acres of land is dedicated for a drainage channel and creek restoration area. The Project's density would be calculated on a project level rather than a parcel -by -parcel basis, and would allow the development of smaller lots than are customarily permitted in the zone, which would retain or preserve the remaining areas as permanent open space, as in the case of the ridgeline and creek. Development Review 18-009 A Development Review (DR) is required for the proposed physical design and layout prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for subdivision developments or multifamily developments in accordance with Chapter 17.57 of the UDC. Additional DRs, would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the product complies and is consistent with the proposed site development of the Project. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 A Hillside Development Review is required for all development on slopes in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope or greater with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC. As described in the above Grading section, the Project's grading would comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC and blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. In addition, Cluster Development is requested in order to reduce grading alterations of the terrain. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 A Landscape Plan Review (LPR) is required for the installation of new landscaping. Preliminary landscape plans have been submitted with this Project (included in the City Clerk's reading file). Additional LPRs would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the landscaping complies with all of the provisions of Section 17.51.030 of the UDC and the General Plan and other applicable requirements. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 An Oak Tree Permit is required for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.040 Oak Tree Preservation of the UDC. The Project includes the removal of up to 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees, the major encroachment of 1 oak tree, and the minor encroachment of 2 oak trees. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 A Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) is required to protect and/or restrict development on identified significant ridgelines with an approval by the City Council in accordance to Section 17.38.070 of the UDC. Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zones establish 100-foot zones either horizontally or vertically on either side of an identified ridgeline. To minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved, only a portion of the ridgeline would be altered and natural topographic features would be conserved by means of landform grading, which would blend any manufactures slopes into the natural topography. The alteration would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of Page 10 Packet Pg. 181 the community and be consistent with General Plan. Furthermore, development within the RP overlay zone is primarily for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road as part of the master planned highways as indicated in the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map 82126 A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) (attached) is required for the subdivision of more than four lots in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and Section 17.25.110 of the UDC. The Project includes a request to subdivide the Project site into 19 lots for residential land uses, streets, private drives, drainage infrastructure, slopes, and various open space lots. The Project's residential land use mix and densities represent a combination of the UR2, UR5, and CN land use standards. The design of the subdivision and improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The Project is located in an existing developed area of the City. The Project would not obstruct any public access. Further, the Project would provide improved public access in the form a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element, and various roadway and infrastructure improvements. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use policies and zoning standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR for the Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the Notice of Avail abi I ity/Noti ce of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on April 6, 2020, and the 60-day public review period ended on June 5, 2020, in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR includes an Environmental Impact Analysis for the following areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The Draft EIR also includes a detailed Project Description, Project Alternatives, and Cumulative Impacts. The Draft Final EIR was prepared for the Project after the review period had concluded. The Draft Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, comments and responses on the Draft EIR, Errata Section, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Draft Final EIR was made available in advance of the October 6, 2020, Planning Commission meeting as it was forwarded to the Planning Commission, forwarded to members of the public and agencies who provided written comments during the public review period, posted on the City's website, and placed in the City Clerk's Office. Following the October 6, 2020, Planning Commission meeting, the City prepared the Final EIR (October 2020). The Final EIR comments and responses on the Draft EIR, Errata Section, and MMRP are included as an exhibit to the agenda report. Page 11 Packet Pg. 182 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held four public meetings (two meetings were continuances) on the Project, closed the public hearing on October 6, 2020, and recommended approval of the Project and certification of the Final EIR by the City Council. Revisions were made to the Project in the form of Conditions of Approval by the Planning Commission. These conditions are as follows: • Condition No. PLl 1: The applicant shall be required to install a minimum of six fully - operational electric vehicle (EV) charging stations (two of which are van accessible): three stations (including one van accessible) located in the trailhead parking lot and three stations (including one van accessible) located adjacent to the trailhead. • Condition No. PL16: The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall disclose the requirement that landscaping shall be subject to the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification and the City's landscaping requirements. • Condition No. PL24: Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. • Condition No. PL26: The applicant shall install a tot lot in a park area within the Project site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. • Condition No. PL27: The applicant shall install a pet waste station at Park 2 (the park area located on top of the ridgeline) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. NOTICING As required by the UDC, all property owners and residences within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties and any interested parties were notified of the public hearing by mail, a public notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on October 20, 2020, and signs were posted at the site on October 27, 2020. As of October 30, 2020, staff has received a total of 167 emails, letters, written comment cards, and speaker cards. Of these, 114 are from unique individuals or groups, whereas the remaining 53 are subsequent letters or comments from the same individuals or groups. These unique individuals or groups have expressed their positions on the Project, summarized as follows: 42 in support of the Project, 13 neutral, and 59 in opposition of the Project. The letters of support reference the state housing crisis, Housing Accountability Act, alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road and roadway improvements, and Project amenities. The letters of opposition express concerns about: aesthetics, air quality, biology, crime, density, home values, noise, oak trees, public services, traffic, water, and wildlife. All letters and comments received during the Planning Commission meetings are included in the City Clerk's reading file. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. Page 12 Packet Pg. 183 FISCAL IMPACT The Project would not have a negative fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. The applicant would be required to pay various development impact fees including, but not limited to, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, transit impact fees, and library impact fees. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice CEQA Resolution Entitlement Resolution Tentative Tract Map 82126 Final EIR October 2020 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission CEQA Resolution P20-08 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Project Resolution P20-09 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 6-2-2020 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 10-6-2020 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Project Comment Letters (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Minutes (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Site Plan (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Park Exhibit (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Gating Plan (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Preliminary Landscape Plans (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 13 Packet Pg. 184 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 18-089: Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18- 004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, Tentative Tract Map 82126, Initial Study 18-002, Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2018121009 PROJECT APPLICANT: Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: East of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive, in the community of Saugus. Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 2812-008-003, -008, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812-022-031. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Proj ect, a residential community. The proposed tentative tract map is to subdivide the subj ect property into 19 lots to facilitate development of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements on approximately 74.66 acres of undeveloped land. The project would also include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Avenue, construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, and construction of the extension of Copper Hill Drive, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element. The pro] ect would require approximately two million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site, channelization of part of the floodplain through the site, removal or encroachment of up to 27 non -heritage sized oak trees, and alteration of a significant ridgeline. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and associated documents, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approve Master Case 18-089; Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19- 003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126 for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 The City Council meeting may be conducted remotely, consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from April 6, 2020, to June 5, 2020. The Draft FEIR was posted for public review in September 2020. The Draft FEIR includes all of the written comments received on the Draft EIR and detailed responses to the written comment letters. A copy of the Draft FEIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, by appointment, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Packet Pg. 185 Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. To make an appointment, please call (661) 259-CITY. The Draft EIR and Draft Final EIR are also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: htti)://www.santa- clarita.com/DlanninL/environmental. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, leclair a>,santa-clarita.com. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Publish Date: October 20, 2020 Packet Pg. 186 RESOLUTION NO. 20- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2018121009) FOR MASTER CASE 18-089 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18- 010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126), INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 18-089, the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), was filed by the Project applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on May 1, 2018, and deemed complete on May 31, 2018. The property for which this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located east of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive, in the community of Saugus; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2812-008-003, -008, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812-022-031. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Architectural Design Review 18-010 for the review of the proposed building design, styles, and forms. 2. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 to allow for the gating of private roadways, multiple -family (multifamily) development in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, and for Cluster Development. 3. Development Review 18-009 for the review of the proposed physical design and layout of the Project. 4. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10 percent. 5. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 for the review of the proposed landscape plan. 6. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 to allow for the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees. 7. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone. 8. Tentative Tract Map 82126 to subdivide the 74.66-acre Project site into 19 lots. In addition, the residential lots, within the subdivision, would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximum of 375 residential units. b. The Project site is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City, on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive. The total Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 187 development footprint, which includes off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. The Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high - density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multifamily dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site, that are designated as OS and PI zones, would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion of the Project site. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. It is mapped as a floodplain and classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, none of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site. d. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses to the north, west, and south, vacant open space to the south, commercial uses (Canyon Center and Plum Commerce Center) to the southwest, and the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott to the east. There is a 2.74-acre parcel that is owned by another party and developed with a single-family residence near the western site boundary, opposite Fan Court, that is not part of the Project site. e. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision - making body for the Bouquet Canyon Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 188 g. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for 45 days, beginning on December 4, 2018, and ending on January 18, 2019. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project. h. A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on January 9, 2019, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on December 4, 2018. Six people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included traffic, noise, dust, air quality, flood and drainage, and a transparent process. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was originally scheduled for April 8, 2020; however, due to COVID-19 measures, the site tour was cancelled. A memorandum, dated April 29, 2020, was sent to the Planning Commission, which included a project description, area maps, site maps, and photo simulations for review. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on April 4, 2020, filed and posted on April 6, 2020, and the 60-day public review period ended on June 5, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA regulations. Staff received written comments throughout the comment period, as well as oral testimony at the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020, Planning Commission meetings for the Project. k. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on the two signs posted at the Project site. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public meeting on the Project on June 2, 2020. The Planning Commission meeting, along with the subsequent meetings, were conducted remotely, consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. These meeting were held at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The meetings were conducted via Zoom, livestreamed through the City's website, and broadcast on SCVTV Channel 20. m. On June 2, 2020, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested entitlements, and project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 189 Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy Consumption, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Wildfire, and Project Alternatives). In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Bouquet Canyon Project back to the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2020, meeting with the following: 1) additional information regarding various discussion topics, including traffic, drainage, the proposed row -house designs, emergency egress, recreational facilities, and bicycle parking, and 2) a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to consider. In addition to the applicant, there were three speakers in favor of the Project and one public speaker who was opposed to the Project. There were seven written comments opposed to and nine written comments in favor of the Project submitted to the Commission at the meeting. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the July 7, 2020, Planning Commission meeting. n. On July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to the August 18, 2020, meeting to allow for additional time for staff and the applicant to respond to the Project comments and the comments received during the EIR comment period. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over various technical aspects of the Project, as well as expressing concerns over the June 2, 2020, meeting being conducted remotely via Zoom. o. On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to a date uncertain, per the request of the applicant, to allow for additional time to finalize Project details. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over riparian habitat, ridgeline alteration, groundwater recharge, and traffic. p. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow-up items from the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation, and public testimony. In addition to the applicant, there were a total of 13 speakers (6 in favor of the Project, 1 neutral, and 6 who were opposed to the Project). There was a total of 32 written comments (30 in favor of the Project, 1 neutral, and 1 who was opposed to the Project). The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (April 2020) and Draft Final EIR (September 2020) prepared for the Project, as well as information in staff reports, public testimony, and letters submitted to the Planning Commission prior to recommending approval of the Project. q. At the conclusion of October 6, 2020, public meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council certify the Draft Final EIR (Resolution P20-08) and approve the Project (Resolution P20-09). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). r. Following the October 6, 2020, public meeting, the City prepared the Final EIR (October 2020). The Final EIR contained copies of all comment letters, responses to oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR, Errata Section, and MMRP. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on October 30, 2020, to commenting agencies, organizations, and persons. Page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 190 s. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on November 10, 2020. This hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. t. The City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all necessary approval documents (e.g., resolutions) for approval of the Project. The Draft EIR (April 2020), Draft Final EIR (September 2020), and Final EIR (October 2020) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. u. Based upon the Draft EIR (April 2020), Draft Final EIR (September 2020), and Final EIR (October 2020), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. v. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Project were duly noticed in accordance with noticing requirements for each of the entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days prior to each hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. w. The location of the documents and other materials for the Master Case 18-089 project file that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is found in with the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid.); b. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," Page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 191 (2) "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15364.); The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; d. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; e. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt an MMRP for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the MMRP, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation; and g. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good - faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the Final EIR for Master Case 18-089 (Architectural Design Review 18-010; Conditional Use Permit 18-004; Development Review 18-009; Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001; Landscape Plan Review 19-017; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003; Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001; and Tentative Tract Map 82126) identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 192 Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows: a. The Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. b. The Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts. d. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, is required to mitigate project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Bouquet Canyon Project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. a. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Proj ect. b. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, Bouquet Canyon Road alignment and Copper Hill Drive extension would not be built, and the site remains in its current state. This alternative would be environmentally superior as compared to the Project, however it would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A) and the objectives of the Circulation Element as summarized in the City's General Plan. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible and also would not provide any of the Project benefits. Alternative 2 — Reduced Grading. This alternative consists of a modified site plan that would limit the grading of the ridgeline and hillside on the western side of the site to only what is required for the Bouquet Canyon Road roadway realignment, redistribute units from PA-1 and PA- lA to other areas, and eliminate PA -IA. Page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 193 This alternative would reduce the aesthetic, air quality, and geology/soils impacts; however, additional aesthetic and development review for compliance with the residential development standards and compatibility would be necessary. Alternative 2 is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it would result in increased building heights from two-story to two- and three-story attached dwelling units in all planning areas due to a loss of development areas in order to meet the proposed unit count and reduce the range of housing types. The resulting higher density would dismiss the input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process to keep buildings to two stories or less, consistent with the surrounding community. Alternative 2 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the Project benefits. d. Alternative 3 — Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat. This alternative would consist of a modified site plan that relocates some homes in PA -IA and PA-2 to avoid clusters of oak trees and preserves the entirety of Bouquet Creek, except for new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and bridge. This alternative would reduce five types of impacts associated with the Project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it has not fully analyzed the hydrological impacts of leaving the entire existing floodplain in its current state (refer to the Drainage Channel Design Alternatives discussion below). The Project would be required to raise the roadways, existing transmission lines, and other utilities. In addition, the planning area pads would need to be raised, the density would intensify, and the building heights would be increased, similar to the results in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the Project benefits. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Bouquet Canyon Project Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds the following: a. That the Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis; b. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions; That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Bouquet Canyon Project; Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 194 d. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings; e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects; That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for the Project; g. That the Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis; h. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and Project approvals; and The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR (SCH No. 2018121009), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this loth day of November, 2020. ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE MAYOR Page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 195 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 101h day of November, 2020, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 196 Exhibit A CEQA Facts and Findings STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT SCH NO. 2018121009 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Packet Pg. 197 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval.......................................................3 2.2 Statement of Objectives.......................................................................................9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...............................................11 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................12 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................13 5.1 Effects Determined To Have No Impact in the EIR.............................................13 5.2 Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR..........................................................................................15 5.3 Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant With Mitigation .......................21 5.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project..................................................................63 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................74 6.1 Findings.............................................................................................................74 6.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................74 October 2020 i Packet Pg. 198 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS 1.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Packet Pg. 199 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Bouquet Canyon Project herein referred to as the "project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the City Council finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, represents the independent judgment of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. The Final EIR (October 2020) is composed of the following elements: • Bouquet Canyon Residential Project Initial Study (November 2019) • Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (April 2020) • Planning Commission Draft Final EIR (September 2020) • Draft EIR Technical Appendices • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • A list of persons commenting on the Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses • Errata from Draft EIR October 2020 3 Packet Pg. 200 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Bouquet Canyon Project would construct a planned new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and develop 375 for -sale homes and related infrastructure, open space, recreation, slopes and drainage improvements, extending over 74.66 acres of land. The following discussion describes the types and amounts of new land uses approved by the City Council, along with the infrastructure improvements and other elements that would comprise the project. Residential Community with the project would build a new residential community consisting of 375 for -sale homes, in both attached and detached configurations, within five planning areas, as described below. Planning Area 1 (PA-1) and 1A (PA-1A) (Single -Family Detached) — This includes 64 homes designed as two-story structures, with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 2,447 square feet. Three plans are proposed with 3-5 bedrooms and 3-5 baths, with approximately 2,307-2,543 square feet of living area. PA-1 would consist of two distinct areas on the western portion of the project site and would total 6.4 acres. Access to the northernmost portion of PA-1 would be through a cul-de-sac developed directly opposite the existing Pam Court. Access to the other portion of PA-1 would be through a two-lane, gated entry street along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This road would also be used for access to PA -2 and PA-3. PA-1A would be located in the southwestern portion of the project site and would total 1.5 acres. Access to PA-1 A would be through a cul-de-sac that is proposed immediately north of the northern end of the existing Canyon Center commercial site. Planning Area 2 (PA-2) (Single -Family Detached/8-Pack Cluster) — This includes 136 homes designed as two-story structures, with attached garages on lot sizes averaging 1,635 square feet. Four plans are proposed, with 3-4 bedrooms and 2-3 baths, with approximately 1,498-1,801 square feet of total building area. Access to PA-2 would be through a two-lane, gated entry street along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This road would also be used for access to PA-1 and PA-3. Planning Area 3 (PA-3) (Attached Backyard Towns) — This includes 90 homes designed as two-story structures with attached garages, in groups of three attached homes, arranged around a common driveway. Three plans are proposed, with 3-4 bedrooms and 3 baths, with approximately 1,606-1,679 square feet of total building area. Access to PA-3 would be through a two-lane, gated entry street along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This road would also be used for access to PA-1 and PA-2. October 2020 4 Packet Pg. 201 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Planning Area 4 (PA-4) (Attached Rowtowns with Carriage Units) — This includes 85 homes designed as two-story structures, with 4-7 attached homes in each "row." Each home would have its own attached garage. Four plans are proposed, with 1-3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and approximately 721-1,521 square feet of total building area. Access to PA-4 would be through a driveway that would be located a few hundred feet east of the existing David Way. Open Spaces, Landscaping and Amenities A variety of private and public amenities are included in the proposed project. This includes a recreation center, with an in -ground swimming pool and spa, outdoor decks, barbeques, building spaces for social gatherings, and restrooms/changing areas. Two private, open turf/play areas are proposed as outdoor amenities within Planning Area 4. Common landscape areas would be planted within the perimeters of each planning area, and between rows of homes in Planning Areas 3 and 4. An extensive landscaping program is proposed, including community open spaces, street trees and parkways along streets, recreational turf areas, native and manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, creek riparian enhancements, stormwater management, and private yards. An interconnected public walking trail network is proposed around the site perimeter, behind (south edge of) Planning Area 4, through Planning Area 1, and around and up to the top of the knoll in the western part of the site. A linear public park, with turf areas, ornamental landscape elements, a tot lot, and seating areas, is proposed within the segment of Bouquet Canyon Road that is to be abandoned, between Hob Court and Pam Court. A public parking lot, with adjacent open turf areas, is proposed along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, between the east edge of Planning Area 3 and the eastern end of the new drainage channel, near the northeast corner of the site. This would grant public access to the on -site public trail network. The northernmost knoll feature in the western part of the site is to be preserved in its natural landform condition, and this feature and adjacent lowland along Bouquet Canyon Road would be the most prominent open space element within the project site. The public trail network described above would provide visual access to the open space along the drainage zone and walking access along and to the knolltop. Roadway Circulation and Access This project proposes off -site and on -site street improvements, as follows. A portion of existing Bouquet Canyon Road would be abandoned, between Hob Court and Pam Court, and a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road would be constructed from approximately 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road to approximately 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element objectives for this major travel route. The Circulation Element classifies Bouquet Canyon Road as a Secondary Highway, ultimately with four travel lanes between Plum Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road. The new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road included in this project would be constructed as a four -lane roadway, with bicycle lanes and parkways on both sides. A private, on -site vehicle circulation network is proposed to provide access to homes within each planning area and access to/from Bouquet Canyon Road. Access from existing and proposed Bouquet Canyon Road would be provided to the various planning areas, as follows: October 2020 5 Packet Pg. 202 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report • A cul-de-sac is proposed directly opposite Pam Court, to provide access to nine homes in the northern part of Planning Area 1. • A cul-de-sac is proposed immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial site, to provide access to 12 homes in Planning Area 1A. • A two-lane, gated entry street would be located between Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This entry street would link to the internal street network serving Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 and a total of 269 homes. • A driveway would be located a few hundred feet east of David Way, to provide access to the 85 homes in Planning Area 4. Drainage/Water Quality An engineered storm drainage system is proposed to collect and treat runoff from the developed site and provide enhanced flood control protection along Bouquet Creek, which would eliminate much of the existing floodplain conditions in that area. Main elements of the proposed drainage system include: A concrete, trapezoidal channel to run parallel to Bouquet Creek, designed to contain 100- year and other higher intensity storm flows. Access roads would be built along both sides to facilitate regular and emergency maintenance operations. A low -flow "restored to natural" drainage channel, parallel to the proposed main flood control channel, is proposed as a 30-foot wide, landscaped open space corridor to be constructed in the primary drainage zone between Planning Areas 2 and 4. Infiltration basins, biofiltration basins, debris/desilting basins, a continuous deflective separation unit, and storage pipes to collect and treat site runoff. Infiltration basins would be located at the western end of Planning Area 4 and along the east side of the northern terminus of the new Bouquet Canyon Road, between the new road and the athletic field in the adjacent Los Angeles County Probation Camp Joseph Scott. Biofiltration basins would be located in the northern piece of Planning Area 1, where the proposed cul-de-sac enters from old Bouquet Canyon Road, immediately north of the new "Y" intersection of old and new Bouquet Canyon Roads, and in the southern portion of the project site in Planning Area 1a to the south of the new "Y" intersection of old and new Bouquet Canyon Roads. In -street, underground drainage lines to collect runoff from the developed areas for conveyance into the proposed concrete -sided drainage channel north of Planning Area 2. Water and Sewer Infrastructure The project would connect to existing water mains maintained by the Santa Clarita Valley Water agency, Santa Clarita Water Division, located in Bouquet Canyon Road to the north and south of the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This connection would provide potable water service to an on -site, underground water distribution system to serve all of the homes' interior plumbing fixtures and for all outdoor irrigation applications. The project would need to annex into LACSD, to authorize discharge of wastewater from throughout the project site to LACSD's trunk sewer, referred to as the 24-inch Bouquet Canyon Relief Sewer, located in Bouquet Canyon Road, south of Seco Canyon Road. The project would be required to construct a new sewer main, located in Bouquet Canyon Road, to convey the project's wastewater flows to October 2020 6 Packet Pg. 203 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report LACSD's trunk sewer. A private system of underground sewers would collect wastewater generated at the homes and recreation centers for conveyance into the new sewer main. Energy and Communications Infrastructure Electrical energy would be provided throughout the residential planning areas via a connection to Southern California Edison's facilities, located in Copper Hill Drive and Bouquet Canyon Road. A portion of each home's electrical demand would be met with on -site solar photovoltaic panels, pursuant to California's 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 of the California Code of Regulations), which take effect on January 1, 2020. Natural gas service would be provided to all homes and the two recreation centers via a connection to Southern California Gas Company's transmission main lines, located in Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive. The project would also install underground cables to enable connections within each planning area to telecommunications services from a local provider of such services. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM The construction of the Bouquet Canyon Project would occur over an estimated 60-month time frame and involve four phases: Site Clearing/Mass Grading of the Entire Site; Site Improvements; Off -Site Improvements; Home Construction and Landscaping. While construction would occur in the order listed, some overlap between phases is possible. Grading would involve cut and fill excavation of approximately 2.07 million cubic yards of soil materials, to be balanced on -site. This includes grading that would be necessary to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road through a significant ridgeline and to remove adversely oriented bedrock that would be replaced with engineered fill materials. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals are listed below. City of Santa Clarita Tentative Tract Map No. 82126—to subdivide the subject property into 19 lots for residential land uses, streets, private drives, drainage infrastructure, slopes, and various open space lots. Conditional Use Permit 18-004—for private gating of multi -family units, any building heights greater than 35 feet, and cluster development. Architectural Design Review 18-010—for the proposed building design, styles, and forms. Development Review 18-009—for the proposed physical design and layout of the project. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001—to develop land with average cross slopes of 10 percent or more. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001—for development near a designated significant ridgeline in the ridgeline preservation overlay zone. October 2020 7 Packet Pg. 204 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003—required for any encroachments or removals of protected oak trees. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 — for the proposed landscape plan. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board General Construction Permit, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Quality Certification, pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. United States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, for alterations to Bouquet Creek. Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Revision ("LOMR"), pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65, to modify floodplain limits along Bouquet Creek and amend the City's Flood Insurance Rate Map, under the National Flood Insurance Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The Bouquet Canyon Project includes the following objectives: a. Provide a range of housing units in distinct neighborhoods, to expand the opportunities for homeownership in the Saugus area in particular, and Santa Clarita in general. b. Build high -quality homes that will have strong appeal for home buyers. c. Deliver new homes in a timely manner to capture a portion of the local housing demand, while economic conditions are favorable. d. Implement the Santa Clarita General Plan Element land use policies to create a residential community at the project site, at a lower density than authorized by those policies. e. Build a planned new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, to replace a substandard segment and improve traffic flow along this heavily traveled route. Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. g. Construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be compatible with and enhance the residential character of surrounding neighborhoods. October 2020 8 Packet Pg. 205 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report h. Alleviate existing flood hazards along the path of Bouquet Creek, to benefit the project site and downstream areas. October 2020 9 Packet Pg. 206 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Santa Clarita City Council conducted an extensive review of this project which included a Draft EIR, Draft Final EIR, and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this project: ■ Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 45-day period. The NOP was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse on November 29, 2018, with the public review period ending on January 18, 2019. ■ The NOP public review period ran for 45 days. The City received seven comment letters from State, regional and local public agencies, and the public. The scope of the issues identified in the comments included potential impacts associated with a variety of topical areas. A scoping meeting was held at the Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room on January 9, 2019, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on December 4, 2019. and was mailed to 14 government agencies, 4 utility entities, and 4 special interest groups. During the scoping meeting, three local residents expressed environmental concerns that were addressed in the Draft EIR. ■ The Draft EIR was distributed for public review and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 4, 2020, for a 60-day review period, which concluded on June 5, 2020. ■ The City received a total of 14 comment letters concerning the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2 of the Draft Final EIR. ■ The Planning Commission held duly -noticed four public hearings on the project on June 2, July 7, 2020 (continuance), August 18, 2020 (continuance), and October 6, 2020. These hearings were held remotely due to the novel corona virus COVID-19. ■ In accordance with CEQA and Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided written responses to the public and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR 10 days prior to the City Council hearing date. October 2020 10 Packet Pg. 207 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Bouquet Canyon Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Michael Baker International to prepare the Bouquet Canyon Project EIR. Michael Baker International prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence the City Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; or (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures. October 2020 11 Packet Pg. 208 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Bouquet Canyon Project EIR found that the proposed project would have no impact with respect to each of the following topic areas listed below. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, there would be no impacts, to the extent they result from the project, for the topics identified below. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ag-1 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? Ag-2 Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Ag-3 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))? Ag-4 Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Ag-5 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 forestland to non -forest use? Cumulative Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts October 2020 12 Packet Pg. 209 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources Bio-6 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? Bio-7 Would the project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils Geo-5 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? Geo- 9 Would the project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Haz-3 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? Haz-4 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? Haz-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Haz-6 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? Haz-7 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Land Use and Planning LU-3 Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? October 2020 13 Packet Pg. 210 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mineral and Energy Resources Min-1 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? Min-2 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? Noise N-5 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 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? N-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Transportation/Traffic and Circulation T-3 Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Bouquet Canyon Project Final EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below. A detailed analysis of the topic areas is provided within the Final EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts, to the extent they result from the project, will be less than significant. Aesthetics Aes-1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Aes-2 Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Aes-3 Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? October 2020 14 Packet Pg. 211 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Aes-4 Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality AQ-4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources Bio-5 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Cultural Resources CR-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in §15064.5? Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts Energy Consumption E-1 Would the project result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources? E-2 Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils Geo-1 a Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential 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? Geo-1 b Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? October 2020 15 Packet Pg. 212 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Geo-1 c Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Geo-1 d Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Geo-2 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Geo-3 Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Geo-4 Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change GHG-1 Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GHG-2 Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality Hyd-1 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Hyd-2 Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Hyd-3.i 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? Hyd-3.ii 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 October 2020 16 Packet Pg. 213 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Hyd-3.iii 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 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? Hyd-4 Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Hyd-5 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use LU-1 Would the project physically divide an established community? LU-2 Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Cumulative Land Use Impacts Mineral and Energy Resources Min-3 Would the project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts Noise N-2 Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Cumulative Noise Impacts Population and Housing PH-1 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)? October 2020 17 Packet Pg. 214 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report PH-2 Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Public Services — 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 any of the public services: • Fire Protection • Police Protection • Schools • Library Services Cumulative Public Services Impacts Recreation Rec-1 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? Rec-2 Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Cumulative Recreation Impacts Transportation/Traffic and Circulation T-2 Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)? T-3 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Utilities and Service Systems Water Supply October 2020 18 Packet Pg. 215 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Util-1 a Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Util-1 b Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple years? Wastewater Util-2a Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Util-2b Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Stormwater Drainage Util-3 Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Dry Utilities Util-4 Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Wildfire W-1 Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? W-2 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? W-4 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? Cumulative Wildfire Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION October 2020 19 Packet Pg. 216 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarita City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, the Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(1) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. AIR QUALITY The project's potential air quality impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.2 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include exceedance of maximum daily emissions of PM10 NO, during construction. AQ-1 WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts due to daily construction emissions exceeding those established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 3.2-1 All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the EPA -certified Tier 4 emission standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technologies (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. MM 3.2-2 The contractor shall utilize hauling trucks no larger than Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) (i.e., gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] 14,001 — 33,000 pounds) during the site preparation and grading phases of construction. October 2020 20 Packet Pg. 217 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report AQ-2 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? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts due to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under the AQMP have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 3.2-1 All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the EPA -certified Tier 4 emission standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technologies (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. MM 3.2-2 The contractor shall utilize hauling trucks no larger than Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) (i.e., gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] 14,001 — 33,000 pounds) during the site preparation and grading phases of construction. AQ-3 WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings October 2020 21 Packet Pg. 218 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The potential impacts to sensitive receptors due substantial pollutant concentrations have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures MM 3.2-1 All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the EPA -certified Tier 4 emission standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technologies (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. MM 3.2-2 The contractor shall utilize hauling trucks no larger than Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) (i.e., gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] 14,001 — 33,000 pounds) during the site preparation and grading phases of construction. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project's potential biological resources impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.3, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include adverse effects to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); adverse effects to sensitive habitat identified by CDFW or USFWS; adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. BIO-1 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 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) October 2020 22 Packet Pg. 219 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.3-1 Mitigation for project impacts to the slender mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) shall include one or more of the following, implemented in consultation with the City and CDFW prior to construction: • Prior to construction, a mitigation plan shall be developed that describes methods to mitigate for impacts to slender mariposa lily at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation plan shall include a description of the mitigation site, seed/bulb collection and planting methods, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards to measure the success of the mitigation. Slender mariposa lily bulbs shall be collected at the end of the growing season and prior to ground disturbance, or seeds shall be obtained from a native plant nursery if available. The seeds/bulbs shall be planted within an appropriate on - site or off -site mitigation area, which will be conserved as open space in perpetuity. • Payment into a mitigation bank that supports this rare plant species. • Preservation of land that contains the rare plant species. MM 3.3-2 In compliance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), a take avoidance survey shall be conducted on the study area within 14 days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of burrowing owl. If the take avoidance survey is negative and burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground -disturbing activities shall be allowed to commence, and no further mitigation would be required. If burrowing owl is observed during the take avoidance survey, active burrows shall be avoided by the project in accordance with the CDFW's Staff Report. The CDFW shall be immediately informed of any burrowing owl observations. A Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by CDFW prior to initiating ground disturbance. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting season. BIO-2 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 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. October 2020 23 Packet Pg. 220 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to sensitive habitat identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.3-3 Prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that a Streambed Alteration Agreement has been issued by the CDFW. Temporary impact areas under CDFW jurisdiction shall be returned to pre -project topographic contours once the project has been completed. Permanent impacts to areas under CDFW jurisdiction for southern willow scrub/giant reed stand (0.70 acres) shall be mitigated through on -site or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of CDFW jurisdictional streambed at ratio of no less than 1:1. Given that the remaining portion of Bouquet Canyon Creek is dominated by invasive giant reed stands, which is of extremely low biological function and value and contributes to downstream infestation of giant reed, the remaining permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction (8.63 acres) shall be mitigated through on -site or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of CDFW jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 0.5:1. Best management practices (BMPs) to minimize and avoid impacts to CDFW jurisdiction during and after construction will be addressed as part in the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Minimization and avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Construction -related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of drainages. No equipment maintenance will be done within or adjacent to the drainage. • Mud, silt, spoil sites, raw cement, asphalt, or other pollutants from construction activities will not be placed within or adjacent to the drainage. • Open trenches or other excavated areas will be properly secured at the end of the day to avoid entrapment of animals, or an escape ramp will be provided. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project shall be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food -related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from site. • Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. • Exclusion fencing shall be installed to demarcate the limits of disturbance and shall be maintained until the completion of construction activities. • To the extent feasible, construction will be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (see mitigation measure 3.3-5, later herein). BIO-3 WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON STATE OR FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, October 2020 24 Packet Pg. 221 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report MARSH, VERNAL POOL, COASTAL, ETC.) THROUGH DIRECT REMOVAL, FILLING, HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION, OR OTHER MEANS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to state or federally protected wetlands have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.3-4 Prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that the appropriate regulatory permits have been issued by the USACE and RWQCB. Temporarily impacted WUS shall be returned to pre -project topographic contours once the project has been completed. Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to WUS shall be required as part of subsequent permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to WUS shall be mitigated through on -site or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 1:1. BMPs to minimize and avoid impacts to WUS during and after construction will be addressed as part of the USACE and RWQCB permitting process. Minimization and avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Construction -related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of the drainage. No equipment maintenance will be done within or adjacent to the drainage. • Source control and treatment control BMPs will be implemented to minimize the potential contaminants that are generated during and after construction. Water quality BMPs will be implemented throughout the project to capture and treat potential contaminants. • Substances harmful to aquatic life will not be discharged into the drainage. All hazardous substances will be properly handled and stored. • A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared to prevent sediment from entering the drainage during construction. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project will be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food -related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from site. • Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. October 2020 25 Packet Pg. 222 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Exclusion fencing will be installed to demarcate the limits of disturbance. The exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of construction activities. BIO-4 WOULD THE PROJECT INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS OR IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.3-5 Schedule construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, if feasible. This season is February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 through August 31 for raptors. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors, a qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. The preconstruction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the preconstruction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist. If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey shall be conducted. If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no construction within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds. CULTURAL RESOURCES October 2020 26 Packet Pg. 223 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The project's potential cultural resources impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.4 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include adverse effects on archaeological resources and human remains. CR-2 WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PURSUANT TO §15064.5? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to archaeological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.4-1 The applicant shall retain a Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist to develop a monitoring program for the project site in areas of young alluvium and colluvium (see Appendix D: Figure 10, Areas of Young Alluvium or Colluvium Deposits). This program shall also address potential discovery of the Ruiz cemetery on the main ridgeline. The monitoring program shall include the archaeological context, rationale for monitoring, Native American participation, monitoring procedures, and what to do with resource/remains discoveries. The monitoring program shall require an archaeologist and Native American monitor from the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to hold a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and both are to be present during initial ground -disturbing activities within the areas of young alluvium and colluvium. Both archaeological and Native American monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground -disturbing activities in the event cultural resources are encountered. If potentially significant cultural material is encountered, the monitors shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits should be avoided if feasible, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits should be evaluated for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). If the deposit is not CRHR-eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are CRHR-eligible, impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of but is not necessarily limited to systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. MM 3.4-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit associated with Planning Area 1, the project developer shall provide the City with evidence of the exact location of the early twentieth century -period Chari/Suraco cemetery, using noninvasive October 2020 27 Packet Pg. 224 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report techniques, and shall delineate those areas in the field to provide visual markers to ensure that grading crews avoid that burial site. The Chari/Suraco cemetery shall be included in the permanent open space area to be preserved in the land immediately east of Planning Area 1. CR-3 WOULD THE PROJECT DISTURB ANY HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to human remains have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.4-1 The applicant shall retain a Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualified archaeologist and/or Registered Professional Archaeologist to develop a monitoring program for the project site in areas of young alluvium and colluvium (see Appendix D: Figure 10, Areas of Young Alluvium or Colluvium Deposits). This program shall also address potential discovery of the Ruiz cemetery on the main ridgeline. The monitoring program shall include the archaeological context, rationale for monitoring, Native American participation, monitoring procedures, and what to do with resource/remains discoveries. The monitoring program shall require an archaeologist and Native American monitor from the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to hold a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and both are to be present during initial ground -disturbing activities within the areas of young alluvium and colluvium. Both archaeological and Native American monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground -disturbing activities in the event cultural resources are encountered. If potentially significant cultural material is encountered, the monitors shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits should be avoided if feasible, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits should be evaluated for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). If the deposit is not CRHR-eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are CRHR-eligible, impacts shall be avoided or mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of but is not necessarily limited to systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. MM 3.4-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit associated with Planning Area 1, the project developer shall provide the City with evidence of the exact location of the early twentieth century -period Chari/Suraco cemetery, using noninvasive October 2020 28 Packet Pg. 225 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report techniques, and shall delineate those areas in the field to provide visual markers to ensure that grading crews avoid that burial site. The Chari/Suraco cemetery shall be included in the permanent open space area to be preserved in the land immediately east of Planning Area 1. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project's potential geology and soils impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include strong seismic ground shaking; ground failure, landslides, unstable soil, or expansive soil; topography or ground surface change; earth movement greater than 10,000 cubic yards; development on slopes greater than 10 percent, and potential for damage to unknown paleontological resources. GEO-7 WOULD THE PROJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.6-2 The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standards to develop a monitoring program for the project site in areas where Castaic and Saugus Formation sedimentary layers are exposed or are likely to be exposed during project construction. The qualified paleontologist shall provide technical and compliance oversight of all work as it relates to paleontological resources and shall be authorized to stop work where potential paleontological resources are discovered to provide an opportunity to examine, recover, and characterize such materials. Additionally, the qualified paleontologist shall conduct construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training at the project kickoff meeting, prior to ground -disturbing activities. Any significant paleontological resources collected during project -related excavations shall be curated into an accredited repository. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report for submittal to the City that documents the results of the monitoring effort and any discoveries. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS October 2020 29 Packet Pg. 226 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The project's potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.8 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include creating a significant hazard to the public or environment through conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure to wildland fires. HAZ-2 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? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.8-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall test the oil/gas well located on APN 2812-008-022 for leakage. The soils around the oil/gas well shall also be tested for significant amounts of hydrocarbons. The results of the soils testing shall be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division for review. Any soils containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons shall be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. HAZ-7 WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. October 2020 30 Packet Pg. 227 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures MM 3.15-1 through MM 3.15-3, listed later, under the topic of Wildfire. NOISE The project's potential noise impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.10 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. N-1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN THE GENERATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES? Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential project -generated noise impacts that result in the generation of temporary noise levels that exceed City plans, ordinances or standards have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.10-1 To reduce noise impacts due to construction, the project applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Director, that the project complies with the following: Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise -generating project construction activities, including haul truck deliveries, shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and with no activity allowed on Sundays or federal holidays. The project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the City of Santa Clarita shall conduct periodic inspections at its discretion. During all project construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The October 2020 31 Packet Pg. 228 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest noise -sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the site during all project construction. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The project's potential traffic and circulation impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.12 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include conflicts with an applicable plan (project operations); conflicts with the applicable congestion management program (project construction and project operations); impacts affecting emergency access; and cumulative impacts. T-1 WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with project operations conflicting with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.12-1 David Way and Old Bouquet Canyon East: Remove existing traffic signal. Close David Way between Old Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive (eliminates south leg of the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection). Construct new east leg at David Way at Copper Hill Drive intersection and connect to Old Bouquet Canyon Road. At the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection, construct median island to restrict the left -turn movement (southbound left) from David Way to Copper Hill Drive and install stop sign at David Way. MM 3.12-2 Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive: Construct median island to restrict left -turn movement (northbound left) from Benz Road to Copper Hill Drive. MM 3.12-3 New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon East: Installation of a traffic signal. October 2020 32 Packet Pg. 229 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM 3.12-4 The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share contribution to a collective set of improvements around the Project site would alter and improve traffic flow on Benz Road, Copper Hill Drive, Kathleen Avenue, David Way, and Bouquet Canyon Road. MM 3.12-5 Bouquet Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (2%) of the cost of these improvements: Add a northbound right -turn de -facto lane and add a dedicated westbound left -turn lane. Installation of traffic signal with northbound and southbound split -phasing. MM 3.12-6 New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon Road West. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (25%) of the cost of these improvements: Construct median island to restrict left -turn movement (southbound left) from Old Bouquet Canyon Road to eastbound New Bouquet Canyon Road. MM 3.12-7 Kathleen Avenue and Copper Hill Drive. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (2%) of the cost of these improvements: Installation of a traffic signal and widen Copper Hill Drive from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Benz to Kathleen. MM 3.12-8 Golden Valley Road and Plum Canyon Road. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (8%) of the cost of these improvements: Update corridor signal timing coordination, as needed, due to future cumulative traffic volumes. MM 3.12-9 Seco Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (42%) of the cost of these improvements: Add second southbound left -turn lane, add one eastbound right -turn lane, add third northbound through lane. MM 3.12-10 Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (8%) of the cost of these improvements: Add third westbound left -turn lane. MM 3.12-11 Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road. The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (0.5%) of the cost of these improvements: Extend median pocket from 300 feet to 500 feet plus taper. Update corridor signal timing coordination, as needed, due to future cumulative traffic volumes. MM 3.12-12 New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon Road East (Copper Hill). The project proponent shall pay the project's fair share (5%) of the cost of these improvements: Add second northbound through lane, add second southbound through lane. T-4 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. October 2020 33 Packet Pg. 230 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the provision of adequate emergency access have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.12-13 A secondary access to the proposed segment of Bouquet Canyon Road shall be provided for the homes in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3 that are accessible only to that new roadway segment. This secondary access shall be identified on the project plans and approved by the County Fire Department and City of Santa Clarita, prior to approval of a Final Tract Map. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.13 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as identified by the City through consultation with a California Native American tribe. TCR-2 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 OJBECT 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 RESOURCE CODE SECTION 5024.1?. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with substantial adverse impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.13-1 The applicant shall retain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all clearing, grubbing, October 2020 34 Packet Pg. 231 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report and grading operations within areas designated sensitive for tribal cultural resources, including areas with young alluvium and colluvium soil conditions. Monitoring activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document potential finds in real time. One monitor will be required on -site for all ground -disturbing activities in areas designated through additional consultation. However, if ground -disturbing activities occur in more than one of the designated monitoring areas at the same time, then the parties can mutually agree to an additional monitor, to ensure that simultaneously occurring ground -disturbing activities receive thorough levels of monitoring coverage. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered 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 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary objects and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the most likely descendant as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. i The project's potential wildfire hazards impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 3.15 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the exacerbation of fire risk. WF-3 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? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the installation or maintenance or infrastructure associated with the project that may exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the environment have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: October 2020 35 Packet Pg. 232 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM 3.15-1 The Project Applicant shall develop a Construction Fire Prevention Plan that addresses training of construction personnel and provides details of fire - suppression procedures and equipment to be used during construction. Information contained in the plan shall be included as part of project -related environmental awareness training. At minimum, the plan shall include the following: • Procedures for minimizing potential ignition, including, but not limited to, vegetation clearing, parking requirements/restrictions, idling restrictions, smoking restrictions, proper use of gas -powered equipment, use of spark arrestors, and hot work restrictions; • Work restrictions during periods of high winds, Red Flag Warnings and High to Extreme Fire Danger days; • Fire coordinator role and responsibility; • Worker training for fire prevention, initial attack firefighting, and fire reporting; • Emergency communication, response, and reporting procedures; • Coordination with local fire agencies to facilitate agency access through the project site; • Emergency contact information MM 3.15-2 The Construction Contractor shall ensure the implementation of all construction - phase flammable vegetation removal, fuel modification landscape materials, and irrigation systems required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, prior to combustible building materials being delivered to the site. MM 3.15-3 To avoid impeding emergency vehicle and evacuation traffic around construction vehicles and equipment, the Project Applicant, in consultation with the City, shall develop an Emergency Vehicle Access Plan that includes the following: • Evidence of advanced coordination with emergency service providers, including but not necessarily limited to police departments, fire departments, ambulance services, and paramedic services; • Emergency service providers will be notified of the proposed project locations, nature, timing, and duration of any construction activities, and will be asked for advice about any road access restrictions that could impact their response effectiveness; and • Project construction schedules and routes designed to avoid restricting movement of emergency vehicles to the best extent possible. Provisions to be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles. Provisions could include the use of platings over excavations, short detours, and/or alternate routes. CUMULATIVE The project's potential cumulative impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.0 of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include near- and long- term traffic congestion at a number of roadway intersections in the surrounding area. October 2020 36 Packet Pg. 233 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential cumulative impacts associated traffic and transportation have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: Refer to MM 3.12-1 through MM 3.12-13, above. October 2020 37 Packet Pg. 234 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the project objectives, as stated in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. In making the following alternatives findings, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Final EIR and the responses thereto. Alternatives Analyzed Three alternatives to the Project were analyzed in the Final EIR: ■ Alternative 1: No Project Alternative ■ Alternative 2: Reduced Grading ■ Alternative 3: Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat October 2020 38 Packet Pg. 235 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative Sites. Alternative sites of generally the same size in the Santa Clarita Valley would result in similar impacts as the proposed site or would not be able to meet the established project objectives. As such, no alternative sites were analyzed for this Project. Table 2 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the Project. Table 2 Comparison of Impacts for Alternatives to Project Impact Topics Proposed Project Alternative 1-No Project/No- Development Alternative 2- Reduced Grading Alternative 3- Reduced Alteration of Creek, Oak Trees, Sensitive Habitat Aesthetics LS 0 < < Air Quality LSM 0 < _ Biological Resources LSM 0 _ < Cultural Resources LSM 0 _ < Energy Consumption LS 0 Geology/Soils LSM 0 < < Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS 0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LSM 0 Hydrology/Water Quality LS 0 _ < Noise LSM 0 Population and Housing LS 0 Public Services LS 0 Transportation/Traffic LSM 0 Tribal Cultural Resources LSM 0 _ < Utilities LS 0 Wildfire LSM 0 Cumulative Impacts LSM 0 Acronyms: LS = Less Than Significant. LSM = Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Symbols: = is similar or equivalent to project impact, > is greater than project impact, < is less than project impact, O is no impact Environmentally Superior Alternative ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE It is considered unlikely that the subject site would remain undeveloped and unchanged for a long period of time, since there continues to be a strong demand for new for -sale housing throughout the Santa Clarita Valley and the project site is designated for residential development in the Santa October 2020 39 Packet Pg. 236 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Clarita General Plan. Further, the site is located in an area where there are many already developed neighborhoods of single-family homes, and all utility infrastructure and public services required to support hundreds of new homes are available in the vicinity of the project site. If the proposed project were not to proceed, it is difficult and speculative to estimate what period of time might go by before another residential development project would be proposed or how that project would be configured, including the number and types of new homes. It is presumed that any alternative development plan would include the same proposed new segment/alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, since this is identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as an important improvement for this busy arterial roadway. The No Project Alternative could be defined as a residential community of 100 to 500 new homes, which may include some combination or a complete allocation of for -sale and for -rent housing units, all at market pricing or possibly including an affordable component. The configuration of the development plan could vary substantially, depending on the number and type of housing units, the extent of clustering and intensities, and the preservation of open space features, etc. Drainage, roadways, wet and dry infrastructure, and recreational amenities could vary considerably, depending on the same factors. Grading and home construction could also proceed in various ways, over different periods of time. Because there are so many potential configurations of a different residential community that could be developed in concert with the City's land use policies, it would be speculative to select any particular alternative scenario for a hypothetical discussion. Therefore, for the purpose of comparative analysis, a No Project/No Development Alternative is defined as no change in the existing site conditions. Findings 1. As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts in the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 1 would eliminate all environmental impacts that would result from the proposed project and accomplish none of the project objectives. Facts in Support of Findings: With the No Project Alternative, the Bouquet Canyon Project would not be implemented and the existing undeveloped site conditions would remain. Because no grading, construction, or operational activities would occur under this alternative, there would not be associated impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas, hazards, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, traffic and circulation, tribal cultural resources, utilities, and wildfire. There would also be no cumulative impacts. Adoption of Alternative 1 would not necessarily preclude ultimate development of the Project site in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning regulations for the site, or land use designations or regulations subsequently adopted by the City. However, if development is proposed in the future, like the Project, such development would be subject to environmental review. October 2020 40 Packet Pg. 237 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report The No Project Alternative would not implement any of the overarching objectives of the proposed project to create a new residential community to expand home ownership opportunities, provide high quality living spaces, meet local and regional housing demands, implement the City's land use policies at lower than allowable densities, construct an important new segment of the City's arterial network, create a distinctive residential community character to integrate with and enhance the character of the surrounding residential community, or alleviate flood hazards along Bouquet Creek. Therefore, none of the project objectives would be met under the No Project Alternative. Project Objective Alternative 1: No Project Provide a range of housing units in distinct neighborhoods, to expand the opportunities for Does not meet homeownership in the Saugus area in particular, and Santa Clarita in general. Build high -quality homes that will have strong appeal for home buyers. Does not meet Deliver new homes in a timely manner to capture a portion of the local housing demand, while Does not meet economic conditions are favorable. Implement the Santa Clarita General Plan Element land use policies to create a residential Does not meet community at the project site, at a lower density than authorized by those policies. Build a planned new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as identified in the Santa Clarita General Does not meet Plan Circulation Element, to replace a substandard segment and improve traffic flow along this heavily traveled route. Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to Does not meet construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. Construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be Does not meet compatible with and enhance the residential character of surrounding neighborhoods. Alleviate existing flood hazards along the path of Bouquet Creek, to benefit the project site and Does not meet downstream areas. ALTERNATIVE 2 — REDUCED GRADING To eliminate some of the grading of the significant ridgeline and other hillside grading in PAs 1 and 1A, some of the homes in PA-1 and all of the homes in PA-1A could be relocated to another part of the site, in order to maintain the same total number of proposed dwelling units. One such area that provides such an opportunity is the relatively flat land located in the north/central part of the site that would be retained as open space in the proposed project. Some level of grading would be required to create building pads, internal streets, and utility infrastructure in that area, but it would be less extensive than the proposed grading for PAs 1 and 1A. It is roughly estimated that several homes within PA-1 and all 12 homes in PA-1A could be relocated to the northern flatter area. Another option would be to relocate the homes from PAs 1 and 1A to one or more of the other PAs. This alternative development concept may also include a different mix of homes, with different building forms and different clustering in some areas. Findings As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts in the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have no improvement in this regard. October 2020 41 Packet Pg. 238 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Alternative 2 would reduce, but not eliminate, adverse impacts for aesthetics and geology and soils, and potentially significant air quality impacts during construction. 3. Alternative 2 would not reduce or eliminate impacts for biological resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology/water quality, noise, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities, wildfires, and cumulative impacts. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to biological resources; cultural resources; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services; transportation/traffic; tribal cultural resources, utilities, and wildfire. Aesthetics. Under Alternative 2, the extent of grading of the on -site significant ridgeline and adjoining hillsides would be reduced. This would reduce the magnitude of less than significant visual impacts involving grading of this ridgeline. Air Quality. Under Alternative 2, total grading requirements would be reduced, thereby reducing daily emissions of fugitive dust and gaseous substances during earth -moving activities. The same construction mitigation measures to reduce emissions would be required. This Alternative would not result in a change in project trip generation or a material change in energy consumption; therefore, it would result in similar, less than significant operational air quality impacts as compared to the Project. Geology/Soils. Under this alternative, the development footprint would be shifted away from a portion of the significant ridgeline in the southern part of the site, and to avoid extensive hillside grading for development of PA-1 A, this group of homes would be relocated to other, flatter areas of the site. This would reduce the extent of earthwork within steep hill formations and thus a reduced level of related effects involving generation of fugitive dust, gaseous emissions, creation of engineered/structurally enhanced slopes and transport of soil materials within the project site. Alternative 2 does not meet all of the project objectives, as shown below. Project Objective Alternative 2: Reduced Grading Provide a range of housing units in distinct neighborhoods, to expand the opportunities for Does not meet homeownership in the Saugus area in particular, and Santa Clarita in general. Build high -quality homes that will have strong appeal for home buyers. Does not meet Deliver new homes in a timely manner to capture a portion of the local housing demand, while Meets economic conditions are favorable. Implement the Santa Clarita General Plan Element land use policies to create a residential Does not meet community at the project site, at a lower density than authorized by those policies. Build a planned new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as identified in the Santa Clarita General Meets Plan Circulation Element, to replace a substandard segment and improve traffic flow along this heavily traveled route. October 2020 42 Packet Pg. 239 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Project Objective Alternative 2: Reduced Grading Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to Meets construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. Construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be Does not meet compatible with and enhance the residential character of surrounding neighborhoods. Alleviate existing flood hazards along the path of Bouquet Creek, to benefit the project site and Meets downstream areas. Alternative 2 would reduce the aesthetic, air quality, and geology/soils impacts compared to the proposed Project; however, additional aesthetic review would be necessary. Alternative 2 is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it would result in increased building heights from two-story to two- and three-story attached dwelling units in all planning areas due to a loss of development areas in order to meet the proposed unit count and reduce the range of housing types. The resulting higher density would revert the Project back to the original proposed building heights and dismiss the input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process. Alternative 2 would not meet Project Objectives a, b, d, and g, as summarized above and would not provide all of the project benefits. ALTERNATIVE 3 — REDUCED ALTERATION OF CREEK, OAK TREES, SENSITIVE HABITAT Alternative 3, Reduced Alteration to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees and Wildlife Habitat, would consist of a modified development plan that would preserve more of the open spaces on -site that support Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and streambed resources, oak trees, and sensitive plants and wildlife. While this could be accomplished in a variety of ways, for the purpose of this analysis, this alternative would modify the proposed plan as follows: The last 2 to 4 homes at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac in PA-1 A would be relocated to one of the other PAs, so that the required fuel modification zones outside of the remaining homes would not extend into the cluster of oak trees that would be impacted by the proposed plan. The northern tip of PA-2 would be moved southward, to avoid impacts to a cluster of oak trees nearby that would be eliminated due to fuel modification zones requirements to protect those closest homes. A different mixture of housing types might be required to maintain or increase the number of homes in PA-2. The entirety of Bouquet Creek through the project site would be preserved in its current condition, except for the eastern end where the new Bouquet Canyon Road segment would be bridged across, and there would be temporary impacts while that bridge was constructed. Buffer areas composed of appropriate native plant communities would be provided along both sides, to enhance the wildlife habitat and movement values. This would avoid any permanent impact to WUS and substantially reduce the extent of impact to streambed and riparian resources that occur in that area. This would also likely eliminate or substantially narrow and modify the alignment of the flood control channel that would parallel the creek, in the proposed plan. Elimination or narrowing/realignment of the flood channel would allow for more homes to be built in PA-2, as noted above, but would require substantial modifications to the proposed drainage system to provide an alternate means of conveying 100-year storm flows and lesser storm flows from the developed site. October 2020 43 Packet Pg. 240 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Findings As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts in the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no improvement in this regard. 2. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, adverse impacts for aesthetics, geology and soils, and hydrology/water quality. 3. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. 4. Alternative 3 would not reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts for air quality and would not reduce or eliminate adverse impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, noise, public services, traffic and circulation, utilities, and wildfire. Facts in Support of Findings: The development anticipated under the Alternative 3 includes a similar mix and number of residential land uses anticipated for the proposed Bouquet Project, although the site plan would be different, with groups of homes relocated from biologically sensitive areas to other, less sensitive areas on site, possibly resulting in some different types of homes, with different building forms, in different clusters. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer impacts relative to aesthetics; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; hydrology/water quality, and tribal cultural resources. Impacts for the remaining 10 topical areas would be similar under Alternative 3 as those anticipated for the proposed project. Aesthetics. Under Alternative 3, several clusters of oak trees, which are regarded by the City as important natural aesthetic resources, would be avoided through modifications to the development footprint of Planning Areas 1A and 2. Biological Resources. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the size of the development footprint would be reduced, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space. This would preserve more of the native oak trees found on site and reduce the level of impact to streambed resources along Bouquet Creek. Impacts to rare plants along the southern slopes created by excavation to build the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would be similar to the impacts of the proposed Project. Cultural Resources. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the size of the development footprint would be reduced, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space. The reduced grading footprint would reduce the land area where grading activities could potentially disturb unknown cultural resources. The same mitigation measures to avoid the Chari/Suraco cemetery and provide monitoring of grading activities by a professional archaeologist and Native American representatives, would apply. October 2020 44 Packet Pg. 241 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Geology and Soils. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the size of the development footprint would be reduced, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space. Consequently, the level of geotechnical remedial measures could be somewhat reduced. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the size of the development footprint would be reduced, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space, including preservation of all or a majority of the Bouquet Creek floodplain that supports California streambed and Waters of the U.S. This would retain more of the existing natural groundwater recharge functions in the creek area, compared to the proposed project. More extensive grading or other, more extensive site alterations might be required to construct a differently configured flood control channel to achieve the same level of protection from the 100- year storm conditions and enable development of Planning Area 4. Tribal Cultural Resources. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that the size of the development footprint would be reduced, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space, including preservation of all or a majority of the Bouquet Creek floodplain that supports California streambed and Waters of the U.S. Since tribal cultural resources are often found along natural water courses, preservation of the Bouquet Creek floodplain would avoid potential impacts to such resources that might occur in that part of the site. Alternative 3 does not meets all project objectives, as shown below. Alternative 3: Reduced Alterations to Project Objective Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat Provide a range of housing units in distinct neighborhoods, to expand the opportunities for Does not meet homeownership in the Saugus area in particular, and Santa Clarita in general. Build high -quality homes that will have strong appeal for home buyers. Does not meet Deliver new homes in a timely manner to capture a portion of the local housing demand, while Meets economic conditions are favorable. Implement the Santa Clarita General Plan Element land use policies to create a residential Does not meet community at the project site, at a lower density than authorized by those policies. Build a planned new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as identified in the Santa Clarita General Meets Plan Circulation Element, to replace a substandard segment and improve traffic flow along this heavily traveled route. Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to Meets construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. Construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be Does not meet compatible with and enhance the residential character of surrounding neighborhoods. Alleviate existing flood hazards along the path of Bouquet Creek, to benefit the project site and Meets downstream areas. Alternative 3 would reduce six types of impacts associated with the Project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and tribal cultural resources, and is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, leaving the entire existing floodplain in its current state would result in other adverse consequences in order to October 2020 45 Packet Pg. 242 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report provide sufficient drainage controls in other ways. For example, the Project would need to be redesigned to raise the roadways, existing transmission lines, and other utilities. In addition, the planning area pads would need to be raised, the density of certain neighborhoods would intensify, and the building heights would be increased, similar to the changes in building heights resulting from Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would not meet Project Objectives a, b, d, and g, as summarized above and would not provide all of the project benefits. While the No Project Alternative would have the least impact, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that, in instances such as this, the EIR must also identify which of the other alternatives would have the least environmental impact. Alternative 3 would be considered environmentally superior, as it would have a less level of impact than the project for six types of impacts, whereas Alternative 2 would have a lesser level of impact for three types of impacts. Since Alternatives 2 and 3 would not achieve four of the eight project objectives and would result in development of taller homes in more dense clusters, they would not be as compatible with the character of the surrounding community as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would also require substantial changes to the grading and drainage plan which would have the effect of raising the elevations of on -site roadways, building pads and existing transmission lines, which could have additional negative effects with respect to community character and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. As such, the proposed Project is considered to be the preferred alternative. October 2020 46 Packet Pg. 243 Statement of Facts and Findings for the Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The City of Santa Clarita City Council hereby declares that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after circulation of the EIR that would require recirculation. The City of Santa Clarita City Council hereby recommends certification of Final Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 2. Alternatives to the proposed project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed revised project. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed project. October 2020 47 Packet Pg. 244 Exhibit B Bouquet Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report October 2020 Incorporated by reference I Packet Pg. 245 1 RESOLUTION NO. 20- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE 18-089 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 18-089, the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), was filed by the project applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on May 1, 2018, and deemed complete on May 31, 2018. The property for which this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located east of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive, in the community of Saugus; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2812-008-003, -008, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812- 022-031. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Architectural Design Review 18-010 for the review of the proposed building design, styles, and forms. 2. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 to allow for the gating of private roadways, multiple - family (multifamily) development in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, and for Cluster Development. 3. Development Review 18-009 for the review of the proposed physical design and layout of the Project. 4. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10 percent. 5. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 for the review of the proposed landscape plan. 6. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 to allow for the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees. 7. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone. 8. Tentative Tract Map 82126 to subdivide the 74.66-acre Project site into 19 lots. In addition, the residential lots, within the subdivision, would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximum of 375 residential units. b. The Project site is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City, on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive. The total development footprint, which includes off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg. 246 acres. The Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high - density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multifamily dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site, that are designated as OS and PI zones, would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion of the Project site. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. It is mapped as a floodplain and classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, none of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site. d. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses to the north, west, and south, vacant open space to the south, commercial uses (Canyon Center and Plum Commerce Center) to the southwest, and the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott to the east. There is a 2.74-acre parcel that is owned by another party and developed with a single-family residence near the western site boundary, opposite Fan Court, that is not part of the Project site. e. The Project includes the development of a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units located within five distinct neighborhoods (Planning Areas) summarized as follows: Planning Area 1 (PA-1): Single -Family Detached PA-1 is located on the western side of the Project site and is divided into two sections: north and south. The north section consists of nine units with a gated entry and cul-de-sac that provides access from the existing Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Pam Court. The south section consists of 43 units with access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. A two-lane street would be located between PA-1, Planning Area 2 (PA-2), and Planning Area 3 (PA-3), along the new segment of Page 2 of 16 Packet Pg. 247 Bouquet Canyon Road. Two gated entries would be located at the end of the street with the west gate granting access to PA-1 and the east gate granting access to PA-2 and PA-3. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, with attached, two - car garages on lot sizes averaging 2,447 square feet. Three model types are proposed ranging from three to five bedrooms and three to five baths, with approximately 2,307 to 2,543 square feet of living area. Planning Area IA (PA -IA): Single -Family Detached PA -IA is located on the southern side of the Project site and directly east of the Canyon Center commercial center. A gated entry and cul-de-sac are located immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial center to provide access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. PA -IA consists of 12 units. The homes would be designed similar to the homes in PA-1. • Planning Area 2 (PA-2): Single -Family Detached/Eight-Pack Cluster PA-2 is located in the center of the Project site and would be accessed through a two- lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-2 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-3. PA-2 consists of 136 units. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, generally in clusters of eight units (with varying configurations), with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 1,635 square feet. Four model types are proposed ranging from three to four bedrooms and two to three baths, with approximately 1,498 to 1,801 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 3 (PA-3): Attached Backyard Towns PA-3 is located on the southern side of the Project site and would be accessed through the two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-3 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-2. PA-3 consists of 90 units. The homes would be designed as two- story, townhome structures with attached, two -car garages, in groups of three attached homes, arranged around a common driveway, and include private backyards. Model types are proposed ranging from three to four bedrooms and three baths, with approximately 1,606 to 1,679 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 4 (PA-4): Attached Rowtowns with Carriage Units PA-4 is located on the northern side of the Project site. Two driveways along the existing Bouquet Canyon Road would provide access to PA-4. Entry gates are not proposed for PA-4. PA-4 consists of 85 units. The homes would be designed as two- story, townhome structures, with four to seven attached homes in each "row." Each home would have its own attached, two -car garage. Four model types are proposed ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and approximately 721 to 1,521 square feet of total living area. The Project includes amenities such as a recreation center, private and public park areas, trails, and a public trailhead with a parking lot. It also includes roadway improvements and a new drainage system. The Project would require alteration of a significant ridgeline for the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 248 Circulation Element objectives. Roadway improvements include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road between Pam Court and Hob Avenue, the closure of a portion of David Way for the extension of Copper Hill Drive, and removal of the bridge over Bouquet Creek in order to construct a linear park. The Project includes the construction of a new drainage channel that runs parallel to Bouquet Creek and the restoration and revegetation of the existing Bouquet Creek into a low -flow drainage channel. The Project would require approximately two million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site. The Project would require the removal of 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees and the major encroachment of one oak tree. f. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision -making body for the Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. g. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. h. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), for 45 days, beginning on December 4, 2018, and ending on January 18, 2019. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project. A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on January 9, 2019, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on December 4, 2018. Six people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included traffic, noise, dust, air quality, flood and drainage, and a transparent process. The original Project application, received on May 1, 2018, included a subdivision of 70 lots and the development of 461 residential units located in five planning areas. The architectural designs of the units included two- and three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process, the applicant decided to decrease the proposed number of units from 461 to 375 and lower the heights of the homes to two stories. k. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was originally scheduled for April 8, 2020; however, due to COVID-19 measures, the site tour was cancelled. A Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg. 249 memorandum, dated April 29, 2020, was sent to the Planning Commission, which included a project description, area maps, site maps, and photo simulations for review. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on April 4, 2020, filed and posted on April 6, 2020, and the 60-day public review period ended on June 5, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with CEQA regulations. Staff received written comments throughout the comment period, as well as oral testimony at the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020, Planning Commission meetings for the Project. m. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on the two signs posted at the Project site. n. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public meeting on the Project on June 2, 2020, The Planning Commission meeting, along with the subsequent meetings, were conducted remotely, consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. These meetings were held at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The meetings were conducted via Zoom, livestreamed through the City's website, and broadcast on SCVTV Channel 20. o. On June 2, 2020, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the project setting, requested entitlements, and project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy Consumption, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Wildfire, and Project Alternatives). In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Bouquet Canyon Project back to the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2020, meeting with the following: 1) additional information regarding various discussion topics, including traffic, drainage, the proposed row -house designs, emergency egress, recreational facilities, and bicycle parking, and 2) a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to consider. In addition to the applicant, there were three speakers in favor of the Project and one public speaker who was opposed to the Project. There were seven written comments opposed to and nine written comments in favor of the Project submitted to the Commission at the meeting. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the July 7, 2020, Planning Commission meeting. p. On July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to the August 18, 2020, meeting to allow for additional time for staff and the applicant to respond to the Project comments and the comments received during the EIR comment period. One speaker Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg. 250 provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over various technical aspects of the Project, as well as expressing concerns over the June 2, 2020, meeting being conducted remotely via Zoom. q. On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to a date uncertain, per the request of the applicant, to allow for additional time to finalize Project details. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over riparian habitat, ridgeline alteration, groundwater recharge, and traffic. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow-up items from the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation and public testimony. In addition to the applicant, there were a total of 13 speakers (6 in favor of the Project, 1 neutral, and 6 who were opposed to the Project). There was a total of 32 written comments (30 in favor of the Project, 1 neutral, and 1 who was opposed to the Project). The Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR (April 2020) and Draft Final EIR (September 2020) prepared for the Project, as well as information in staff reports, public testimony, and letters submitted to the Planning Commission prior to recommending approval of the Project. s. At the conclusion of October 6, 2020, public meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council certify the Draft Final EIR (Resolution P20-08) and approve the Project (Resolution P20-09). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). t. Following the October 6, 2020, public meeting, the City prepared the Final EIR (October 2020). The Final EIR contained copies of all comment letters, responses to oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR, Errata Section, and MMRP. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on October 30, 2020, to commenting agencies, organizations, and persons. u. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on November 10, 2020 This hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. v. The City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all necessary approval documents (e.g., resolutions) for approval of the Project. The Draft EIR (April 2020), Draft Final EIR (September 2020), and Final EIR (October 2020) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. w. Based upon the Draft EIR (April 2020), Draft Final EIR (September 2020), and Final EIR (October 2020), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg. 251 x. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Project were duly noticed in accordance with noticing requirements for each of the entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days prior to each hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. y. The location of the documents and other materials for the Master Case 18-089 project file that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based is found in with the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-089. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Bouquet Canyon Project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita. The General Plan designates the Project site as UR2, UR5, and CN zones, in addition to areas within the OS and PI zones. The UR2 zone is intended for single- family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 zone provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes. Multifamily dwellings are allowable at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN zone allows multifamily dwellings with a CUP. With consideration of the average cross slope calculation, the Project site may have a maximum of approximately 944 units. However, with the physical constraints of the site and the necessity of the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, the Project includes a request for a maximum of 375 units located in five planning areas. The State of California required that the General Plan Housing Element includes an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the zoning and infrastructure available to serve these sites. This inventory is used to identify sites that can be feasibly developed for housing within the planning period in order to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This section of the Housing Element contains the required inventory of adequate sites for new housing that can be developed to meet the City's housing needs within the planning period. The vacant, approximately 32-acre central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site, Housing Site 2. A UR5 designation allows 18 to 30 units per acre. In general, this classification, along with the density bonus allowances, would allow for up to 1,360 units. However, based on the site's topography, floodway, and other constraints, an estimated 300 units may be reasonably accommodated on the property. This central portion, in addition to other areas of the Project site, would accommodate the development of 375 residential units, amenities, and necessary drainage systems to be consistent with the General Plan, specifically, Mixed Land Uses Goal Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 252 LU 2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, supported by adequate resources and maintaining community assets. In addition, the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, extension of Copper Hill Drive, and other roadway improvements is consistent with the Circulation Element. b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Hillside Development Review, Landscape Plan Review, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, and Tentative Tract Map in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). With the granting of these entitlements, the Project, with its mix of units, recreation area, trails, density, and parking, would be allowed within the applicable underlying zones and compliant with all other application provisions of the UDC. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; The Project has been evaluated in accordance with the UDC and the General Plan. The Project has been designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Project will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity. The Project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and is in keeping with the development in the vicinity. The proposal was fully evaluated by regulatory agencies through the development review process to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. The Project was also subject to a public hearing process in which interested citizens in the vicinity voiced their opinions before the Planning Commission. Through the application of the Conditions of Approval, the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and will not be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, the Project would complete the Bouquet Canyon Road, Copper Hill Drive, and other circulation improvements. d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The Project has been designed to be consistent with the UDC, including the required provisions for hillside development, cluster development, and residential code requirements. The Project site consists of residential development primarily within the UR2, UR5, and CN zones, and trailhead, park areas, and road improvements located within the OS and PI zones. The zones have identical corresponding General Plan designations. The Project was designed under the constraints of a ridgeline and floodplain Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg. 253 and the necessity of constructing a realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The Project utilized the topography of the Project site to concentrate uses on the flat areas, where possible, utilized cluster development within five planning areas, and altering a portion of the ridgeline for the road realignment. The new segments of Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive are developed within the remaining portions of the site. With the Conditions of Approval, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project included a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the improvements required for the Project. The Project includes the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and the connection of Copper Hill Drive to the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The traffic analysis identified multiple areas of roadway improvement requirements to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The applicant is required to construct improvements at the following intersections: David Way and existing segments of Bouquet Canyon Road, Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive, and the eastern location of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and the existing segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. In addition, the applicant is required pay the Project's fair share contribution to a collective set of improvements around the Project site that would alter and improve traffic flow within the immediate area of the Project site, which includes Benz Road, Copper Hill Drive, Kathleen Avenue, David Way, and Bouquet Canyon Road, among others. The completion of the roadway improvements would ensure the Project will have the necessary traffic infrastructure to service the site and uses in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project will have access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, the existing Bouquet Canyon Road, and Copper Hill Drive. The Project is conditioned to require the completion of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, subject to the infrastructure phasing plan, to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and construction timing as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing Sheriff and fire protection services. The applicant will pay applicable fees to the Sheriff and Fire Departments to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. No new or expanded Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department or Los Angeles County Fire Station facilities would be required to provide public safety and law enforcement services to the Project site. In addition, a detailed wildfire access and emergency analysis was completed and found the Project is designed accordingly to provide safe access. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg. 254 The Project is in a portion of the City that is developed with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. Santa Clarita Valley Water would have sufficient water supplies to meet the Project's water demand. The payment of mandatory development impact fees to each affected school district would sufficiently mitigate the Project's impacts. A sewer area study was conducted for the Project. Los Angeles County Sanitation District would have sufficient wastewater capacity to convey and treat the flows generated by the fully developed Project. The stormwater drainage facilities developed on -site are designed to hold a greater capacity and infiltration than the water quality volume required by the County of Los Angeles Public Works. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: a. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. The Project includes the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, which includes the connection and continuation of the City's Class 11 Bike Lane, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, an interconnected public walking trail network is to be constructed within the interior and along the perimeter of the Project site to integrate the site with the City's existing trail system. A trailhead with a public parking lot and park areas within the eastern portion of the Project site would allow access to the on -site trail network. As part of the Project, three new bus stops will be constructed for the City to integrate the site with the City's existing transit system. The onsite roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for the future residents, as well as any law enforcement and emergency services. Therefore, the Bouquet Canyon Project will not obstruct any public access with the subdivision of the site. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 255 The grading plan would involve an estimated cut of 2,069,664 cubic yards and a fill of 2,052,237 cubic yards. The total development footprint, including off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. All earthwork would be balanced on site with the difference between cut and fill due to shrinkage upon compaction. No import or export of earth will be required. The Project includes grading within the Rddgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone and the alteration of a portion of the ridgeline to build the General Plan - designated roadway. The Project site contains hillsides in excess of 10 percent average cross - slope requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides, utilize appropriate contour grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading, and will comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood; The requested entitlements include a CUP to allow for Cluster Development subject to the requirements of the UDC. This would allow for a concentration of residential units and reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Over three acres of land is dedicated for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and over eight acres of land is dedicated for a drainage channel and Bouquet Creek restoration area. The Project's density is calculated on a project - level rather than a parcel -by -parcel basis, and would allow the development of smaller lots than are customarily permitted in the zones, which would retain or preserve the remaining areas as permanent open space, as in the case of the ridgeline and creek. The north section of PA-1 and the entirety of PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4 are all located in relatively flat areas of the Project site. d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; The Project complies with the applicable setback requirements of the UDC. To ensure construction of each planning area is compliant with the provisions of the UDC, a Condition of Approval (attached as Exhibit A) has been incorporated into the Project requiring the approval of a Development Review application by the Director of Community Development. e. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects ofgrading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; The Project includes the grading of the Project site to accommodate the development of the residential uses and roadway improvements. The new slopes will use landform and contour grading techniques to further blend into the existing slopes on the Project site. Planting of the graded slopes will be consistent with the City's landscape ordinance which requires standards relating to the quality, quantity, and functional aspects of landscaping and landscape screening. In addition, the Project shall be compliant with the requirements of the Los Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg. 256 Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation and plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita Valley. Furthermore, a condition has been added to the Project that requires a disclosure of the planting requirements in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, varying in size, species, and health. No heritage oak trees were identified on the Project site. As part of the Project, 15 non -heritage -sized oak trees would be removed and would either replaced on -site or required to pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Oak Tree Fund as required by the UDC. The remaining 49 oak trees would be saved. Therefore, planting the graded slopes will be conducted in a manner consistent with the City's landscape, hillside, and oak tree ordinances, as well as the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. f. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; One of the Proj ect Obj ectives listed in the Proj ect's EIR states to "minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment." In order to facilitate the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, an alteration of a portion of the significant ridgeline is required. The City's design criteria for arterial roadways limit both the steepness and curve radii of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. As a result, there is a cut depth of over 100 feet required in order to construct the alignment. The combination of depth of cut, width of the roadway (four lanes plus parkways), and 2:1 slopes adjacent to the roadway would result in a major alteration to the existing ridgeline. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscaping and soften views to the public. The east side of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road (adjacent to the south section of PA-1) and the south side of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. The clustering of units would further minimize impacts. g. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and h. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. The Project includes development on a ridgeline identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. A portion of the designated ridgeline on the west side of the Project site would be graded in order to build a General Plan -identified alignment for Bouquet Canyon Road. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter a portion of the ridgeline and the ridgeline is not the most substantial ridgeline in the community. Based on the evaluations of existing conditions, including the fact that the ridgeline on the Project site is not a character -defining feature of the Saugus community, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg. 257 SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: a. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; b. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance ofadjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation ofthe ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site, as the residential use would be appropriate in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community, as is evidenced by the surrounding residential developments. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Saugus community. No new homes or other structures would exceed two stories or 35 feet in height, and the built -environment of all proposed planning areas would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of building massing and maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for travelers along Bouquet Canyon Road. Mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and compliance with all local codes ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. c. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area; Implementation of the Project would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not violate the visual integrity of the ridgeline, as the ridgeline on the Project site is indistinguishable from other hills in the surrounding area and the Project would not restrict and views of other ridgelines located off the Project site. d. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents ofnot only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole; One of the Project Objectives listed in the Proj ect's EIR states to "construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be compatible with, and enhance the residential character of, surrounding neighborhoods." The Project was designed under the constraints of a ridgeline and floodplain and the necessity of constructing a realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The Project utilized the Cluster Development Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg. 258 provisions of the UDC for the concentration of residential units primarily on the flat areas and the reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Through the review process, the proposed number of units of the Project was reduced from 461 units to 375 units and lowered the heights of the homes from two- and three-story homes to only two-story homes in all five planning areas, thereby lowering the potential visual impacts. The General Plan Circulation Element was developed based on analysis of existing conditions in the Santa Clarita Valley, future development in both City and County areas, and anticipated growth. Roadway infrastructure improvements are made as growth occurs in the Santa Clarita Valley and needs are assessed continually by the City. The Project includes the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as designated in the Circulation Element as a secondary highway, which is designed to service both through traffic and to collect traffic from collector and local streets. As conditioned, the Project is required to build the roadway prior to the occupancy of any units. Furthermore, the Project includes other features that would provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of both the development and City as a whole, including bus stops, public trailhead, trail network, park areas, and amenities. e. The use or development minimizes the effects ofgrading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; f. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and One of the Proj ect Obj ectives listed in the Proj ect's EIR states to "minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment." A portion of the designated ridgeline on the west side of the Project site would be graded in order to build the General Plan -identified alignment for Bouquet Canyon Road. The northern portion of the ridgeline would be preserved in its current form, and the middle portion of the ridgeline would be modified to accommodate for a trail and park area, thereby preserving the northern portion of the ridgeline. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The east side of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road and the south side of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. g. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. By incorporating Cluster Development, this allows for a concentration of residential units and reductions to development standards in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. There are no public scenic overlooks on or adjacent to, the Project site; however, the steep terrain on the Project site could make the site part of a scenic vista when viewed from a distant location. There are other General Plan -designated significant ridgelines in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, all of which are taller than the significant ridgeline on the Project site. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element, because the Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 259 Project would only alter a portion of the ridgeline, and because the ridgeline on the Project site is not the most substantial ridgeline in the community. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: a. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: i. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; ii. The condition ofthe tree(s) with respect to disease, danger offalling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; iii. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut, or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or iv. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 64 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 15 non -heritage sized oak trees and the encroachment of four oak trees, thereby saving 49 oak trees. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss the removed of oak trees. If planting on site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. In addition, the Project site contains two Blue Oaks that are uncommon and rare in the community. Therefore, the Project will include Conditions of Approval to provide additional justification, which includes grading plan details, cross -sections, reappraisals, and a transplant study, prior to any proposed removal to be reviewed and approved by the City. The compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. b. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. No heritage oak trees were identified on the Project site. Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg. 260 SECTION 7. The City Council approves Master Case 18-089; Architectural Design Review 18-010; Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126 for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this loth day of November, 2020. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 101h day of November, 2020, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 261 EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18- 001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126; INITIAL STUDY 18-002; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2018121009 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer within thirty (30) days of said change. GCS. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant. If the City Page 1 of 16 Packet Pg. 262 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 2 of 44 fails to notify the applicant or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC6. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GCB. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances including, but not limited to, the California Building Code (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building, and Energy Codes), Fire Code, Unified Development Code (Grading Code and Undergrounding of the Utilities Ordinance), Utilities Code (Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance), and Highway Permit Ordinance. GC9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant has filed their affidavit (Acceptance Form) with the Director of Community Development stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC10. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general Conditions of Approval, or City policies, and not modified by this permit, must be specifically approved. GC11. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The applicant is approved for the following entitlements for the Bouquet Canyon Project (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2812-008-003, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, 2812-022-031, and 2812-008-008) associated with Master Case 18-089: A. Tentative Tract Map 82126, B. Conditional Use Permit 18-004, C. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, D. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, E. Architectural Design Review 18-010, Packet Pg. 263 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 3 of 44 F. Development Review 18-009, G. Landscape Plan Review 19-017, and H. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003. The project shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan on file with the Planning Division. All uses, construction, and operations shall be in accordance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. Any changes to the approved plans shall require additional review by the Director of Community Development and approval by the applicable review authority. PL2. The applicant is approved to construct a maximum of 375 residential units within the Planning Areas with the following breakdown: A. Planning Area 1 (PA-1): 52 single-family units B. Planning Area IA (PA -IA): 12 single-family units C. Planning Area 2 (PA-2): 136 single-family units D. Planning Area 3 (PA-3): 90 multifamily units E. Planning Area 4 (PA-4): 85 multifamily units Each Planning Area is subject to the approval of an Architectural Design Review and Development Review by the Director of Community Development. The applicant may transfer up to 10 percent of the units between Planning Areas subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. At no time shall the total number of units exceed 375 units. PL3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project (SCH No. 2018121009). PL4. Applicant understands and agrees that no access is allowed from existing Bouquet Canyon Road for PA-1, PA -IA, PA-2, or PA-3, with the exception of the north section of PA-1. PL5. Applicant understands and agrees that no access is allowed onto Copper Hill Drive for PA- 4 unless and until Copper Hill Drive is extended and constructed as described in Condition No. EN2. PL6. The applicant is approved to develop multifamily development within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone of the project site. PL7. The applicant is approved to apply cluster development standards subject to the approval of a Development Review by the Director of Community Development and consistent with Section 17.68.020 of the UDC. PL8. Prior to first building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a phasing plan for all amenities including, but not limited to: trailhead parking lot, on and off -site trails, pocket Packet Pg. 264 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 4 of 44 park areas, recreation facility, and splash pad, subject to the approval by the Director of Community Development. PL9. Any changes to the design of Bouquet Creek and the drainage channel will be subject to the approval by the Director of Community Development and may require additional review. PL10. The number of parking spaces (including enclosed, guest, accessible, and fuel -efficient, low -emitting, carpool/vanpool spaces) shall subjectto Development Review and consistent with the parking requirements established in the UDC by each Planning Area, PL11. The applicant shall be required to install a minimum of six fully -operational electric vehicle (EV) charging stations (two of which are van accessible): three stations (including one van accessible) located in the trailhead parking lot and three stations (including one van accessible) located adjacent to the trailhead. PL12. The applicant shall install a minimum of 68 bike parking spaces distributed throughout the Planning Areas and park areas consistent with the approved Park Exhibit. PL13. The applicant is approved for the construction of six gates in five locations within the project site, consistent with the approved site plan, elevations, colors and materials, and other documents that constitute the Master Case 18-089 project file. All gates will be installed on private driveways. No public access will be gated with this project. The locations of the gates are as follows: Gate A: Two gates from the main driveway entrance of the south section of PA-1, PA- 2, and PA-3 off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Gate B: One gate from the driveway entrance of the north section PA-1 off of existing Bouquet Canyon Road. Gate C: One gate from the driveway entrance of PA-2 and PA-3, adjacent to the trailhead parking lot, off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Gate D: One gate from the driveway entrance of PA -IA off of new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Gate E: One gate from the driveway entrance of the south section of PA-1 off of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. PL14. The applicant shall construct the recreation facility, including a recreation center building and swimming pool and spa with cabana or patio cover, subject to the approval of an Architectural Design Review by the Director of Community Development. PL15. All commonly owned areas shall be recorded as such and shall be maintained by the project's Homeowners Association unless maintained by the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) office. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, irrigation, slopes, and drainage devices. Packet Pg. 265 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 5 of 44 PL16. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall disclose the requirement that landscaping shall be subject to the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification and the City's landscaping requirements. PL17. The architecture of the all Planning Areas, including the recreation building, shall be subject to the approval of an Architectural Design Review by the Director of Community Development and consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Saugus community. The applicant shall provide elevations that incorporate 360-degree architecture that complies with the CCDG. PL18. All lighting shall be directed down and shielded from neighboring uses. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study for review and approval with each Development Review application for each planning area that demonstrates that no light will spill over property lines. PL19. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be identified on the site plan and screened completely from surrounding properties. Air conditioning condensers shall be located a minimum of five feet from any condominium side lot line, and shall not be seen from public view. PL20. Each unit shall include adequate space for trash bins outside of the 20-foot by 20-foot space within the garage or provide adequate space on the sideyard with screening subject to subject to the approval of an Architectural Design Review by the Director of Community Development. PL21. The project shall comply with all City codes and the requirements of all City divisions, including, but not limited to, the Building and Safety Division and Engineering Services Division. PL22. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The applicant shall provide a sign program prior to the installation of signs on the project site. PL23. The applicant shall comply with all applicable noise standards including, but not limited to Section 11.44 (Noise Limits) of the City's Municipal Code, for the construction of the proposed buildings. PL24. Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. PL25. Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless traffic volumes or public safety issues warrant otherwise (as determined by City, County, or State officials). No construction on Sundays and holidays shall occur. Packet Pg. 266 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 6 of 44 PL26. The applicant shall install a tot lot located in a park area within the project site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL27. The applicant shall install a pet waste station located at Park 2 (the park area located on top of the ridgeline) to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Landscape Conditions LR1. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and shall be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan shall meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, as well as all other current Municipal Code/Unified Development Code requirements. LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. LR3. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans (Attachment A), and shall conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards (§17.51.030) in the UDC. The following elements need to be addressed on the preliminary and/or final landscape plans: A. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15-gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; B. Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; C. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two inches deep; D. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and E. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all Packet Pg. 267 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 7 of 44 landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. LR4. The final landscape plan shall include enhanced landscape on frontage adjacent to PA-1 and PA-4. The mixture of tree sizes and species shall include trees to provide adequate screening at the time of planting. Fuel modification Unit must approve the landscape plan prior to Planning approval. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements ENl. At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to City Council action, the applicant shall enter into an agreement signed by both parties to acquire the necessary right-of-way from the off -site property owners, Davenport Jason & Kellie (APN: 2812-008-008) and Monteverde (Plum Bouquet Canyon Investment Co., APN: 2812-022-031), for the construction of new Copper Hill Drive alignment per Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 82126. The applicant shall acknowledge and agree with the requirements of EN8. Prior to first occupancy of PA-4, the applicant shall construct the new alignment of Copper Hill Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN3. Prior to grading permit or Final Map, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall enter into an agreement signed by both parties to acquire the necessary right-of-way from the off -site property owner, Plum Canyon Master LLC (APN: 2812-038-002), for the revised alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road per TTM 82126. The applicant shall acknowledge and agrees with the requirements of EN8. EN4. Prior to storm drain plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement signed by both parties to acquire the necessary off -site property in fee from the property owner, Plum Canyon Master LLC (APN: 2812-038-002), for the construction of proposed debris basin per TTM 82126. The applicant shall acknowledge and agrees with the requirements of EN8. Prior to first occupancy of PA-1 (along Bouquet Realignment), PA -IA, PA-2, or PA- 3, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall complete the construction of debris basin in compliance with the approved storm drain plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Applicant's failure to acquire the necessary offsite property for the construction of the debris basin prior to storm drain plan approval for whatever reason shall require the submittal by applicant of a revised map and hydrology study which addresses drainage flows and identifies a location for the debris basin that is under the control of the applicant/developer. The relocated debris basin must be constructed prior to first Packet Pg. 268 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 8 of 44 occupancy of PA-1 (along Bouquet Realignment), PA -IA, PA-2, or PA-3, whichever occurs first. EN5. Prior to grading permit or Final Map, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall enter into an agreement signed by both parties to acquire all necessary offsite grading licenses/easements from the property owner, Plum Canyon Master LLC (APN: 2812-038- 002 & APN: 2812-054-025), for the proposed grading and construction of slopes per TTM 82126, as required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall acknowledge and agrees with the requirements of EN8. EN6. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall complete the grading and construction of slopes incompliance with the approved grading plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN7. Prior to grading permit or Final Map, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter into an agreement with the County of Los Angeles to acquire the necessary off -site property in fee from the County of Los Angeles (APN: 2812-008-900) for the proposed improvements shown on their property per TTM 82126 including but not limited to the construction of: a portion of Bouquet Canyon Realignment including the bridge over Bouquet Creek and T-intersection of new Copper Hill Drive alignment, slope along Bouquet Canyon Realignment, secondary access to site and associated improvements, debris basin, infiltration basin, concrete channel, low -flow channel including the 42" RCP line, and other miscellaneous improvements, as required by the City Engineer; And relocation of Los Angeles County sewer main and other infrastructures, as required by the County of Los Angeles. The applicant shall acknowledge and agrees with the requirements of EN15. EN8. This tentative map approval is subject to the applicant's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of off -site private property: A. The applicant shall secure, at the applicant's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. B. If the applicant is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off -site improvements, the applicant shall notify the City of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the Final Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off -site improvements by the applicant. C. The applicant shall pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Applicant shall pay such costs irrespective of whether the Final Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and overhead. Packet Pg. 269 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 9 of 44 D. The applicant shall secure, at the applicant's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. E. The applicant agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it commences negotiations for acquisition of the property based upon an appraisal as a first step in the eminent domain process. F. At the time the applicant notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the applicant shall simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the applicant's notice described hereinabove at "B". G. The applicant agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. H. The applicant shall not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Final Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. L If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the applicant agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. J. The applicant shall execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the Final Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. K. Failure by the applicant to notify the City as required by "B" hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "F" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "G' hereinabove, shall constitute applicant's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider shall meet all conditions for installing or constructing off -site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN9. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall agree to all conditions required by Los Angeles County for the proposed improvements and relocation of existing sewer line through their property. EN10. All existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV shall be placed underground prior to first building occupancy fronting that line. All new power lines and overhead cables shall be placed underground. ENl 1. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall submit plans, consistent with the Copper Hill Drive trail alignment and cross -sections provided by the Traffic Division, for the following improvements: A multi -use Class I Trail along Copper Hill Drive from David Way trail - head to Haskell Canyon Open Space and construction of pedestrian bridge over the concrete channel, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Packet Pg. 270 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 10 of 44 EN12. The applicant shall complete the Copper Hill Drive and Class I Trail improvements along with the of Copper Hill Drive alignment improvements, as required by the City Engineer. EN13. The applicant shall construct the pedestrian bridge over the new concrete channel, within the old Bouquet Canyon Road alignment, as required by the City Engineer. Subdivision Requirements EN14. Prior to building permits, a Final Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California shall be filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, and State of California Codes. EN15. This tentative map approval is subject to the applicant's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of Los Angeles County property, prior to issuance of grading permit or Final Map approval, whichever occurs first: A. The applicant shall cooperate, at applicant's expense, with the City of Santa Clarita regarding acquisition of Los Angeles County property by the City of Santa Clarita, to permit construction of all proposed off -site improvements on Los Angeles County property per TTM 82126. B. The applicant shall pay all of City's costs of acquiring said off -site property. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, staff time, and any other associated services. C. The applicant agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. D. Failure by the applicant to comply with any of the above stated Items (A, B, or C) shall constitute applicant's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. City may require an agreement as required by Section 66464.5(c) in its discretion. EN16. Prior to the Final Map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Final Map. EN17. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures, as directed by the City Engineer. Packet Pg. 271 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 11 of 44 EN18. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate any necessary easements for public improvements. EN19. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall label driveways as "Private Driveways and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN20. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show that portion not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing as a "Designated Remainder" on the map. EN21. At map check submittal, the applicant shall provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required prior to Tract Map approval. EN22. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. Prior to building final, the applicant is required to install distribution lines and individual service lines for CATV service for all new development. EN23. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property. EN24. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space/common lots. EN25. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay street maintenance fees to cover the cost of one-time slurry seal of public streets within the development. EN26. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. EN27. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide ownership by fee to Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the concrete channel and associated slope & access road, and for debris basins along the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. EN28. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map storm drain maintenance easement, for the 42" RCP pipe, to City of Santa Clarita. EN29. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map Right -of -Way dedication of Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive to the City of Santa Clarita, as directed by the City Engineer. EN30. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map all slope easements along Bouquet Canyon Road, dedicated to City of Santa Clarita, as required by the City Engineer. Packet Pg. 272 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 12 of 44 EN31. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map Trail Head easement dedicated to City of Santa Clarita. EN32. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. EN33. The applicant shall vacate David Way and that portion of Bouquet Canyon Road located at the bridge over the Bouquet Canyon Creek and elsewhere upon completion of Bouquet Canyon Road Realignment, including the connection of Copper Hill Drive, and completion of new bridge over Bouquet Canyon Creek, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Requirements EN34. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs shall include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. The CC&Rs shall grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs/association. The CC&Rs shall grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). EN35. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. EN36. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall establish a Home Owners' Association (HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots, all slopes and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN37. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall transfer ownership of open space lots to the HOA. The grant deed shall be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer. Access Requirements EN38. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall record a reciprocal access easement and maintenance agreement for all shared driveways and drive isles within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. This condition may be satisfied by incorporating the appropriate provisions into the CC&Rs. Packet Pg. 273 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 13 of 44 Condominium/Lease Requirements (for residential only) EN39. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a notarized affidavit to the City Engineer, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the City, stating that any proposed condominium buildings have not been constructed or that all buildings have not been occupied or rented and that said building will not be occupied or rented until after the filing of the map with the County Recorder. Grading and Geology Requirements EN40. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. All required mitigation measures, including but not limited to the Seismic Hazard Zone, shall be incorporated into the development plans. EN41. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall substantially complete rough grading and construct drainage facilities within the project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. EN42. Prior to first building occupancy, the applicant shall substantially complete rough grading of the project per approved grading plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN43. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, or delineate restricted use areas on the Final Map as approved by the consultant geologist, and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures within all restricted use areas and as directed by the City Engineer. Drainage Requirements EN44. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division to connect the on -site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. EN45. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain concrete channel design approval from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Division. The concrete channel shall be permitted and constructed through the County and to be maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. EN46. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain plan approval and necessary permits from the City of Santa Clarita and connection permit from Los Angeles County Public Works for the installation of 42" RCP low -flow line. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Packet Pg. 274 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 14 of 44 jurisdictional permits for the installation and ongoing maintenance of the 42" pipe. Prior to Map Recordation, the applicant shall form DBAA to fund the ongoing maintenance of this line by the City of Santa Clarita. EN47. Prior to the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall be responsible for providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The applicant or subsequent property owners shall also be responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance be assumed by the Flood Control District. EN48. Prior to storm drain plan approval, the applicant shall obtain written approval from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District of all easements needed for future maintenance by the District. EN49. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Prior to Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a precise grading plan. EN50. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on the Final Map, delineating the areas subject to flood hazard, and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures within all flood hazard areas. FEMA Flood Zone Requirements EN51. The project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (A, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, Prior to grading plan approval, a floodplain study shall be prepared using HEC-RAS or other City -approved program, by a Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California, to analyze the 100- year storm event. The study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The study shall analyze upstream and downstream of the proposed project to a point where the post -development flowrates and velocities equal the pre -development flowrates and velocities. Any change to the flowrates or velocities must be contained within the applicant's property or the applicant shall file with the County Recorder an Acceptance of Drainage Form signed by adjacent property owner(s). The design of the concrete channel or bank protection and/or levee shall meet the design requirements of CFR Title 44 Chapter 65.10. B. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the applicant is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMS). Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Packet Pg. 275 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 15 of 44 C. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe/Floodplain, the applicant is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMS). Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Water Quality Requirements EN52. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. EN53. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and 10 or more dwelling units. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. EN54. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems, infiltration basins, and restoration of natural drainage coarse identified on the latest approved Storm drain plan/Plan. The applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems shall include but are not limited to catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the district has been established. Street Light Requirements EN55. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Street Light Plan to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. Street -lighting systems shall be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-2 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Landscape Maintenance District Division. Packet Pg. 276 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 16 of 44 Fiber Requirements EN56. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit conduit and/or fiber plan prepared per City Standard to Engineering Services Division for review and approval. EN57. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall obtain conduit and/or fiber plan approval for the connection to City's communication network in the right-of-way. EN58. Prior to first occupancy or parkway improvement, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall install conduit and/or fiber per the approved plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An encroachment permit from Engineering Services Division will be required for the work. Street Improvement Requirements EN59. All streets shall be designed in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code and street design criteria; construction shall be completed prior to building final_ If the City Engineer determines that it is more beneficial for the City to construct the required improvements later, the applicant shall pay a cash in -lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of the improvements. EN60. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct wheelchair ramps at new or modified intersections, as directed by the City Engineer. EN61. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Services Division. EN62. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN63. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for off -site street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study. EN64. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. Packet Pg. 277 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 17 of 44 EN65. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall construct street pavement per either of the following options. Prior to street plan approval, the selected option shall be indicated on the plan. A. The applicant shall construct the full pavement section including the final lift of asphalt to finish grade in conformance with the design TL Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. The applicant shall construct a pavement section that is a minimum of 11/2" lower than finish grade, in conformance with the design TL Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement, and complete the final lift of asphalt to meet finish grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN66. Prior to building final for homes within a Planning Area fronting on or adjacent to the individual streets, excluding along Bouquet Canyon Road realignment & Copper Hill Drive, as indicated below, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements within and along the applicable frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewal Landscape Street Name Gutter Paving Lights Trees k d 5 min Median Bouquet Canyon Road (New)** X X X X X X Bouquet Canyon Road (Existing) X X X X X Copper Hill Drive*** X X X X X Internal Streets X X X X X (Private Driveway & Fire Lane) Copper Hill Drive with Trail * * * X X X X X (David Way to Buckhorn Lane) Construct per details on TTM 82126 ** Improvements shall be installed pursuant to the infrastructure phasing plan to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and construction timing as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to first building occupancy, the applicant shall commence construction of the bridge over the Bouquet Creek as directed by the City Engineer. *** Prior to first building occupancy in PA-4, the applicant shall construct the Copper Hill Drive alignment which includes minimum 5' wide sidewalk along Copper Hill Drive from David Way to the new intersection with Bouquet Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. **** The following improvements to be completed along with Copper Hill Drive alignment (New), as directed by the City Engineer: Both sides of Copper Hill Drive between David Way and Buckhorn Lane. EN67. Prior to first building occupancy or as required per additional traffic study, the applicant shall fully construct all of the intersection improvements (including, but not limited to, curb Packet Pg. 278 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 18 of 44 and gutter, base and paving, sidewalk, parkway and median landscaping, and utilities relocation) conditioned for project by Traffic Engineering to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN68. Prior to building final, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN69. Prior to building final, the applicant shall provide and install street name signs, as directed by the City Engineer. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN70. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary sewer easements. The sewer plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer. EN71. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the County Sanitation District with the request for annexation in writing. EN72. The on -site sewer laterals shall be a privately maintained system. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit an "on -site sewer plan." The "on -site sewer plan" shall be designed per the California Plumbing Code and approved by the City's Building & Safety division prior to Grading Plan approval. EN73. The on -site sewer main shall be a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer; and all necessary easement for maintenance of the sewer shall be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. EN74. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall coordinate with the Building & Safety Division regarding payment of additional annexation fees, if required, to annex the property into the County Sanitation District. EN75. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall pay their fair share cost of the sewer upgrade EN76. Prior to building permits, the applicant shall construct main -line sewers with separate laterals to serve each lot/parcel. Main -line sewers shall have a straight alignment, and shall be located five feet from and on the northerly and easterly sides of the centerlines of streets or alleys, except on major or secondary highways where separate sewers shall be located in the roadway six feet from each curb line. Packet Pg. 279 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 19 of 44 EN77. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN78. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the proposed building(s) shall be connected to the sewer main per approved sewer area study. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN79. Prior to encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Street Lights), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Building final shall be withheld if the improvements are not completed. BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION Plans and Permits BSI. Construction drawings shall be prepared and submitted to the Building & Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports shall be included with the plan submittal. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. The project shall comply with the building codes in effect at time of building permit application. The current state building codes are: the 2019 California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes, the 2020 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, 2016 California Energy Code (CEC), and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) BS3. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all architectural, accessibility, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape, interior design and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building & Safety Division. Civil plans may be part of the submittal package to Building & Safety however will only be used for reference. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). BS5. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website at: httD://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=17773 Packet Pg. 280 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 20 of 44 BS6. Construction drawings may be submitted electronically or by submitting paper plans. In either case an "eService Account" must be created to use our permitting system. Please log on to: www.santa-clarita.com/eservice and create an account by clicking "register for an Account." BS7. Construction drawings submitted to Building & Safety shall have a complete building code analysis and floor area justification for the proposed building per Chapters 5 and 6 of the California Building Code. BS8. The submitted site plan shall show all parcel/lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holder's written permission or the easement shall be removed. Parcel lines that overlap any proposed buildings shall be removed (lot line adjustment) prior to building permit issuance. BS9. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building & Safety division directly. BS10. Prior to submitting plans to Building & Safety, please contact a Permit Specialist at (661) 255-4935, for project addressing. Electric Vehicle Parking per CalGreen BSI 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within parking facilities for new residential multifamily buildings per the California Green Building Standards Code Section 4.106.4. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces provided shall be EV charging spaces for future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). At least one EV space shall be located in a common use area and available for use by all residents. BS12. For townhouses with attached private garages, each dwelling unit shall have a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt, 40-amp minimum branch circuit. Each end of the raceway shall be marked "EV CAPABLE" (CalGreen 4.106.4.1). BS13. Multi -family dwelling units do not require clean -air vehicle or bicycle parking spaces. Agency Clearances BS14. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: a. Santa Clarita Planning Division, b. Santa Clarita Engineering Services (soil report review and grading), c. Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), d. Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (for construction near any Oak Trees), e. Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, Packet Pg. 281 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 21 of 44 f. Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), g. Los Angeles County Sanitation District, h. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, i. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district. An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building & Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. Accessibility BS15. All multi -family residential buildings (ground -floor dwelling units and all dwelling units in buildings with elevators) shall be accessible and comply with the Housing Accessibility requirements per CBC Chapter 11A. BS16. All common use areas such as lobbies, laundry facilities, community rooms, clubhouse, swimming pools, fitness rooms, elevator, interior and exterior routes of travel, etc. shall be fully accessible for the disabled per CBC Chapter 1 IA. BS17. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided for each type of parking facility; including garages, carports, assigned and unassigned parking, and guest/visitor parking as follows: a. Where assigned parking spaces are provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 2% of all assigned parking. b. Where unassigned and visitor parking spaces are provided, accessible parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 5% of all unassigned parking. Designated guest or visitor parking shall be provided with at least one accessible parking space. c. Accessible parking spaces shall be located and dispersed to be on the shortest possible accessible route to accessible building entrances. BS18. Buildings containing multi -family dwelling units shall also follow all applicable accessibility regulations including federal requirements that may be more restrictive. Please refer to the following: a. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued April 30, 2013 (www.hud.gov). b. Dwelling units constructed as senior citizen housing may also be subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Refer to Division 1, Part 2 of the California Civil Code. For additional information regarding application, interpretation and enforcement, contact the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. FHA, HUD and DOJ regulations are not enforced by the local Building & Safety jurisdictions, however, are the responsibility of the designer, architect, owner and developer of the project. Packet Pg. 282 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 22 of 44 BS19. Please show all disabled access requirements, including site accessibility information and details on the architectural plans versus the civil plans. Civil plans are not reviewed or approved by the Building & Safety Division. Soil Reports and Grading BS20. A complete soils and geology investigation report will be required for this project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans for the project. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. BS21. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: a. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. b. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification for each new building shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division prior to issuance of any building permits. BS22. Some proposed buildings appear to be located adjacent to graded slopes. All structures (including retaining walls, carports, trash enclosures, fences, etc.) shall be setback from adjacent ascending and descending slopes per CBC Section 1808.7. Hazard Zones BS23. The project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. A summary of these requirements is available at the Building & Safety's public counter. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall show all Fire Zone requirements. BS24. This project appears to be partially located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone. All construction within the floodplain shall comply with the City's Floodplain Ordinance (Chapter 10.06 of the Municipal Code), Engineering Services Division requirements, all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, and the California Building Code. Plans submitted to Building & Safety shall show compliance with all applicable Flood Zone requirements. BS25. Indicate on the cover sheet of the plans that this project IS PARTIALLY LOCATED in a Flood Hazard Zone and IS LOCATED in the Fire Hazard Zone. Packet Pg. 283 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 23 of 44 Additional Info BS26. Each separate detached building or structure, such as clubhouse, recreation buildings, pools, trash enclosures, retaining walls, and shade structures, require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans of the main project. BS27. Separate Demo Permit will be required to raze any existing building to be removed on the site. Clearances from the City Planning Division, City Environmental Services (for construction & demo deposit) and AQMD will be required prior to issuance of any demo permits. BS28. These general conditions are based on a review of conceptual plans submitted by the applicant. Additional conditions and more detailed building code requirements will be listed during the plan review process when a building permit application and plans are submitted to Building & Safety. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION TEl . All driveways shall have a minimum stacking distance of: A. 20 feet from face of curb off of residential local collectors. B. 40 feet from face of curb off of secondary or major highways. C. 100 feet from face of curb off of secondary or major highways with apotential traffic signal. TE2. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. The location, width and depth of all project driveways, access locations and drive aisles shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways or access locations shall be permitted. TE4. All private driveways and roadways shall intersect with a public street at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TES. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference Packet Pg. 284 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 24 of 44 of 10%. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TE6. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for any private driveway sections. TE7. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit for each phase, the applicant shall post "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE8. All dead-end driveways shall extend five feet beyond the last parking stall or garage to provide back-up area. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE9. Sidewalks shall be provided on all internal roadways that are not alley -type driveways, unless an alternative internal pedestrian network is provided. This shall be shown on all appropriate cross sections. TE10. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TEl 1. If any access points (driveways) are off of a roadway with a speed of 35 mph or higher, the inbound driveway lane shall have a minimum of 16 feet to allow right turns not to interfere with outgoing traffic. TE12. No residential driveways shall be permitted along residential collector streets, residential roadways with 64-foot right-of-way, or along residential roadways projected to carry over 2,000 vehicles per day (per UDC Section 16.07.020). Such a restriction is subject to the discretion of the City Engineer. TE13. Any gates on private residential streets shall be designed and located to provide adequate stacking and turn -around areas. Prior to issuance of the first residential building occupancy permits, the design for all residential gates shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer prior to approval and subject to Los Angeles County Fire Department approval. The necessary right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to map recordation. All residential gates on private streets shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to approval. TE14. The alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road shall be shown from the southerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008-030 to the northerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008-009. The existing alignment, proposal alignment, all intersection streets, and detailed designs for both intersection points of the existing and proposed alignments shall be included. Packet Pg. 285 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 25 of 44 TE15. The project shall include the connection of Copper Hill Drive to Bouquet Canyon Road, consistent with the City's Circulation Element. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE16. Typical street sections of existing and proposed streets within and abutting the project site showing street names, dimensions, centerlines, existing and proposed right-of-ways, existing and proposed street improvements, and existing and proposed medians shall be included. TE17. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right-of-way for a total of 46 feet from each side of the centerline on the new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, from the southerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008-030 to the northerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008-009, or as directed by the City Engineer. TE18. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right-of-way for a total of 32 feet from the centerline on the easterly and southerly sides of the existing alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, from the southerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008-030 to the northerly boundary of Assessor's Parcel Number 2812-008- 009, or as directed by the City Engineer. TE19. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary right-of-way for both intersection points of the existing and proposed alignments of Bouquet Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. TE20. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the connection of Copper Hill Drive to Bouquet Canyon Road, as directed by the City Engineer. TE21. The northerly and southerly intersections of existing Bouquet Canyon Road with proposed Bouquet Canyon Road shall be designed as T-intersections, with the primary direction of travel along proposed Bouquet Canyon Road. TE22. The applicant shall coordinate with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) for its fair share of all required improvements at the intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road, including but not limited to installation of a traffic signal. Prior to final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide written notice from LACDPW acknowledging the payment to the County by the applicant. TE23. The following improvements shall be completed at the intersections outlined below as provided in the infrastructure phasing plan approved by the City Engineer. All of the following improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. a. Bouquet Canyon Road & Bouquet Canyon Road (North/East) — Install traffic signal Packet Pg. 286 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 26 of 44 b. Bouquet Canyon Road & Bouquet Canyon Road (South/West) — Install median (worm) to prohibit left -turn movements out of Old Bouquet Canyon Road onto New Bouquet Canyon Road c. Copper Hill Drive & David Way — Install median (worm) to prohibit left -turn movements out of David Way onto Copper Hill Drive; Construct new east leg of Copper Hill Drive d. Copper Hill Drive & Benz Road — Install median (worm) to prohibit left -turn movements out of Benz Road onto Copper Hill Drive e. Copper Hill Drive & Kathleen Avenue — Install traffic signal f. Copper Hill Drive — Widen to provide two lanes each direction, between Kathleen Avenue and Benz Road TE24. The applicant shall prepare an additional traffic phasing study to determine the appropriate timing of the following improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If a traffic phasing study is not provided prior to issuance of first building permit, these improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first building occupancy permit. a. Bouquet Canyon Road & Seco Canyon Road: i. Add Westbound Right -Turn Lane to provide 3 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane ii. Add Eastbound Through Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 3 through lanes iii. Add Southbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 2 left -turn lanes, 2 right -turn lanes b. Bouquet Canyon Road & Newhall Ranch Road: i. Add Westbound Left -Turn Lane to provide 3 left -turn lanes, 4 through lanes, 1 right -turn lane c. Golden Valley Road & Newhall Ranch Road — Extend Eastbound Left -Turn Lanes to provide 500 feet of storage (not including taper) TE25. The applicant shall be responsible for installation of new conduit for the installation or the future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the project. This shall be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable shall also be required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The interconnect conduit and cable shall be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements. TE26. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic - signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to four (4) intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($16,000 total). This fee shall be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted Packet Pg. 287 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 27 of 44 by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. TE27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Bouquet Canyon B&T District. The current rate for this District is $19,310. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Single Family = the number of units (200) x the district rate ($19,310) _ $3,862,000 Townhouse = the number of units (175) x the district rate ($19,310) x 0.8 = $2,703,400 Total = $3,862,000 + $2,703,400 = $6.565.400 TE28. The applicant will receive reimbursement in the form of B&T credits for the construction of improvements identified in the B&T District Report on General Plan roadways, subject to approval of the City Engineer. B&T credits shall be issued upon completion and acceptance of such off -site improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES1. All single-family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided (out of public view) for three 90-gallon trash carts, one each for trash, recycling, and greenwaste. Proposal for space in side -yards and garages is sufficient. Please ensure that sufficient space is available for trash and recycling carts to be placed at the curb for servicing, without blocking driveways, parking spots or fire lanes. ES2. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all commercial construction projects valuated greater than $200,000 or over 1,000 square feet for new construction, all new residential construction projects, and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES3. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: A. A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. B. A minimum of 65 percent of the entire proj ect's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. Packet Pg. 288 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 28 of 44 C. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10 percent of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 65 percent of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES4. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES5. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at (661) 286-4098 or visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Landscape Maintenance District SD1. This parcel will be required to annex into Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall form a local Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) under the 1972 Act for the ongoing funding of required maintenance and improvement of landscaping, street trees, irrigation, paseos, and pedestrian bridges. All parcels included in the scope of the project are required to annex into this local LMD. SD3. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall be required to install irrigated landscaped medians, streetscape and slopes on Bouquet Canyon along the project frontage. The irrigation, landscape and hardscape shall be consistent with City of Santa Clarita's guidelines for median, streetscape and slope landscaping. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit landscape plans for Special Districts approval. The applicant is encouraged to meet with representatives from Special Districts to discuss design requirements and the process for turning the landscape over to the City for maintenance upon completion. SD4. The applicant shall be required to install separate water meters and/or electrical meters/panels for the irrigation for all plant material located within the public right of way to be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District. Packet Pg. 289 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 29 of 44 Streetlight Maintenance District SD5. The applicant will be required to annex all parcels in this project that are not already included into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District (SCLLD), Streetlighting Zone B. The District funds the operation and maintenance of various landscaping and lighting improvements throughout the City that provide special benefits to properties within the District. Parcels 2812-008-013, 2812-008-900, and 2812-022-031 were annexed into the District with the North Copperhill annexation in 2013. The annexation will bring the Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) rate current (FY 20/21 $86.86), and add the cost of living escalator (CPI). There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 + $100.00 per EBU. Benefit Units are based on land use and vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. Additional information may be required from the applicant to calculate the fee. 1. Following the completed annexation there will be an annual assessment included on the property tax bill. The assessments are based on land use, see attached EBU rate sheet 2. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. 3. Developer will work with Special Districts and obtain approval on the LED light fixtures, if any, to be installed on public streets. 4. Ownership of all new streetlights installed on public streets will be transferred to City of Santa Clarita. 5. Developer will work with Special Districts to determine if the streetlights will be metered or unmetered. Packet Pg. 290 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 30 of 44 Residential EBU Calculation Table 1 - EBU Calculations for Residential Parcels SFIR and Condos 0.50 0.25 0.25 = 1.00 per parcel APT2 Apartments (2-4 units) 1f2 x units 0.25 x units 0.25 2 1.00 0.50 0.25 = 1.75 per parcel 3 1.50 0.75 0.25 = 2.50 per parcel 4 2.00 1.00 0.25 = 3.25 per parcel APT5 Apartments (5-20 units) 1f2 x units 1.00 0.25 5 2.50 1.00 0.25 = 3.75 per parcel 20 10.00 1.00 0.25 = 11.25 per parcel APT21 Apartments (21-50 units) 1f3 x (units-20) + the total EBU for a 20-unit apartment 50 10.00 + 11.25 = 21.25 per parcel APT51 Apartments (51-100 units) 1f4 x (units-50) + the total EBU for a 50-unit apartment 100 12.50 + 21.25 = 33.75 per parcel APT101 Apartments (100+ units) 1f5 x (units-100) + the total EBU for a 100-unit apartment 101 0.20 + 33.75 = 33.95 per parcel 175 15.00 + 33.75 = 48.75 per parcel 200 20.00 + 33.75 = 53.75 per parcel OAK TREE CONDITIONS General Oak Tree Conditions OT1. The project site has a total of 64 protected oaks trees. The applicant is permitted to remove and/or perform major encroachment of up to 28 of the 30 oak trees listed in the Oak Tree Report, completed by Helix Environmental Planning, dated June 22, 2020. The 28 oak trees that are permitted for removal and major encroachment include the following: A. Removal of one Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) B. Removals of four Scrub Oaks (Quercus berberidifolia) C. Removals of 22 and encroachment of one of the 23 Tucker Oaks (Quercus tuckeri) Prior to removal of any oak trees and or issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit an addendum to the Oak Tree Report, subj ect to the Oak Tree Conditions, for review by City Oak Tree Specialist. OT2. Due to the uncommon and rare characteristics of the Blue Oaks (Quercus douglasii) in this community, the applicant is not permitted to remove the two Blue Oaks, as identified in the Oak Tree Report as Tree Numbers 10 and 18. The applicant shall reevaluate and submit additional justification for the proposed removal to be reviewed and approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist. Packet Pg. 291 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 31 of 44 Blue Oak Removal Justification OT3. The applicant shall provide supplemental information and exhibits with alternate designs that can preserve the Blue Oaks, rather than remove them: A. The applicant shall provide options to the grading and proposed construction plans that will preserve the Blue Oaks rather than remove them. B. These design alternatives need to be completed for each of the two Blue Oaks and comply with the "Close -Up Grading Plan" details and the "Oak Tree Cross - Section" requirements listed below. C. Some of the options can be changes to the grading and development near the oak trees, as well as the installation of Crib Walls and/or other features that can reduce the impact to the oak trees. D. The applicant shall provide close-up plan details, cross -sections, and exhibits that explain how design changes can be implemented to preserve the Blue Oaks. E. Additional design options to be considered can include minor encroachment to the Blue Oaks rather than complete removal. Close -Up Grading Plans OT4. The applicant shall submit grading plan details that feature the surrounding area within 200 feet of the two Blue Oaks from an aerial perspective: A. All oaks within this grading envelope shall be prominently marked and highlighted. B. The oak tree trunk location shall be indicated on the grading plan, as well as an accurate depiction of the canopy/drip-line and protected zone. C. All proposed oak tree encroachments shall be shown on this grading plan exhibit along with dimensions of the distance from encroachment to tree trunk location and/or protected zone. D. The close-up grading plans shall provide the existing grading contours as well as the proposed grading activity and future construction. E. The cuts and fills shall be prominently marked and shaded. Oak Tree Cross -Sections OT5. The applicant shall submit oak tree cross-section exhibits of the two Blue Oaks in relation to the existing grade and all currently proposed development within 100 feet of the oak tree protected zone. A. Additionally, the applicant shall provide cross -sections of alternate development plans that reduce or eliminate oak tree encroachments to the two Blue Oaks. B. The cross-section exhibits shall show the elevation of grades and all proposed grading changes, encroachments, and proposed construction. C. The oak tree cross -sections shall provide dimensions of the encroachments for review by City Oak Tree Specialist. Packet Pg. 292 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 32 of 44 Blue Oak Appraisals OT6. The applicant shall recalculate the tree appraisals for the two Blue Oaks: A. The applicant shall reassess the ISA Tree Value Assessments for the two Blue Oaks. The replacement trees used (Valley Oak and the corresponding Basic Unit Tree Cost of $119.37 per square inch) is less than equal to the slower growing Blue Oak. B. The applicant shall change the replacement tree for the Blue Oak to a Scrub Oak, in order to more closely match the growth rate of the Blue Oak. It is not acceptable to use a Valley Oak as a tree replacement for the Blue Oak, as a Valley Oak grows much faster and will have a lesser monetary value per square inch than a Scrub Oak. C. The applicant shall change the "Basic Unit Tree Cost" for the Blue Oak to the value of the Scrub Oak and recalculate the ISA Tree Value Assessments using the Scrub Oak value of $142.60 per square inch. Oak Transplant Study OTT If it is determined that the Blue Oaks cannot be reasonably preserved, then the applicant is required to provide a Transplant Study that provides the cost of removing the two Blue Oaks by boxing and maintaining the oaks for future onsite relocation: A. The Transplant Study and estimate shall be completed by a Qualified Transplant — Tree Moving Company and provide the cost of removing, boxing, storing, and replanting of the two Blue Oaks within the project site. It is highly recommended that the boxing of the Blue Oaks occur over a minimum of three to six months with side boxing and bottom boxing completed over this time period. B. Alternate box sizes for the transplanting of the oaks shall be part of the cost estimate for consideration and review by the City. The applicant shall be aware that transplanted oaks are considered removals and that the full ISA Tree Value will be assessed if the Blue Oaks die after transplanting. Reasonable Justification for Blue Oak Removals OT8. If no reasonable design changes can be implemented to preserve the Blue Oaks, then the applicant shall provide a justification on how the removal request is "reasonable" and that there are no other reasonable options for the project. There shall be a justification as to why that is the conclusion and why all other preservation options are unreasonable. Packet Pg. 293 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 33 of 44 Fuel Mod Requirements and Modifications OT9. Provide an explanation as to why the oaks within a fire zone must be removed, especially the two Blue Oaks. Include a discussion on any variances that could be obtained from Fire Agency to preserve sensitive oak tree habitat. Additional consideration shall be given to the Fuel Mod Plan that may impact the decision to remove protected oaks. Alternate Fuel Mod Plans shall be provided that include Fire Agency recommendations for the preservation of the oaks and alternate defensible space. Oak Tree Mitigation OT10. The applicant shall update the last submitted Oak Tree Report, dated June 22, 2020, in regards to the Oak Tree Mitigation Replacement Plan. OT11. The applicant shall update the Oak Tree Mitigation Value and Oak Tree Mitigation Plan after the recalculation and reappraisal of the two Blue Oaks as requested in these conditions. The Total Mitigation Value and Mitigation Plan will be affected by the final determination of the removal and/or transplanting of the two Blue Oaks. A. Currently, the Oak Tree Mitigation Values are for the proposed removal and encroachment to 30 oak trees, which includes the removal of the two Blue Oaks. The current mitigation value is $284,400. OT12. The applicant shall provide a Conceptual Oak Tree Mitigation Plan for the proposed oak tree removals and encroachments based on the total ISA Tree Value Assessment of these trees: A. The total ISA Tree Value Assessment shall include the updated Blue Oak Tree Values as requested in these conditions. B. The Conceptual Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall provide the estimated quantity, size, and type of replacement oaks, as well as their individual and collective monetary value. C. Any outstanding balance to the full oak tree mitigation value shall be paid into the City Oak Tree Fund. D. The final Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. OT13. All mitigation replacement oaks shall be native oak species local to the City of Santa Clarita and approved by the City. OT14. The final location, size, and type of all mitigation oaks shall be approved by the City. Packet Pg. 294 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 34 of 44 Oak Tree Bonding OT15. The applicant is required to obtain a bond in the full amount of the ISA Monetary Tree Value for the Final Oak Tree Mitigation Value prior to the issuance of Grading Permit and or any proposed oak tree removals. A copy of the Oak Tree Bond shall be provided to the City for verification prior to the removal of any oak trees. OT16. The Oak Tree Bond shall remain in place until the Oak Tree Mitigation requirements are completed. This is generally at the end of the establishment period for the replacement mitigation oaks which is a minimum of two years after accepted installation and up to five years for transplanted oaks. If mitigation and or transplanted oaks are not fully established at the end of the original mitigation period, then the oak tree mitigation time will be extended until oaks are established. OT17. The Oak Tree Bond shall remain in full activity and be renewed each year until all replacement mitigation oaks and the full oak tree mitigation period has been completed by the applicant and accepted by the City. OT18. The Oak Tree Bond can only be released by the City after meeting the final Oak Tree Mitigation requirements and all replacement oaks have been accepted as established. Oak Tree Care and Maintenance OT19. The applicant shall be required to dead -wood and clean all oaks within or near a Fuel Mod Zone. This work shall reduce dead material for wildfires and improve the health of the trees. OT20. Additional watering, mulching, and or other corrective measures may be required depending on health and condition of the protected oaks. Oak Tree Monitoring and Reports OT21. The applicant shall be required to submit periodic Oak Tree Monitoring Reports during the construction and development of the project. These reports shall be completed by a Qualified Consulting Arborist approved by the City. OT22. The reporting timelines will be based on the oak tree impact activity. Some reports may be monthly or bi-monthly and other reports may be extended to three- or six-month intervals. OT23. Oak Tree Monitoring Reports shall be submitted for all the replacement mitigation oaks for the duration of mitigation period. These reports will start at every three months for the first year and expand to larger intervals if trees are doing well. Packet Pg. 295 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 35 of44 OT24. All oak tree monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Oak Tree Specialist and the Planning Division. OT25. All reports shall be submitted in digital format and contain updated pictures of the monitored oaks as well as a brief explanation of their condition and recommendations. Standard Oak Tree Conditions OT26. All other standard oak tree preservation and protection measures shall be performed throughout the project development. OT27. The applicant is required to comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. OT28. Failure to comply with all required preservation and protection measures can lead to a Stop Work Order until all violations have been corrected. OT29. These oak tree conditions are preliminary and based on the information provided at the time of review. Additional oak tree conditions may be implemented at a later time if warranted. For any questions related to these oak tree conditions, please contact the City Oak Tree Specialist, Robert Sartain at rsartain@santa-clarita.com or by phone at (661) 294- 2556. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Final Map Requirements FD l . A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to recordation. a. The Final Parcel Map shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC - LA, epicla.lacounty.gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire — Land Development — City Request — Final Map — Tract. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will be addressed. FD2. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all-weather access surface to be clear to sky. Packet Pg. 296 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 36 of 44 FD3. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted. The areas for parking shall be designated outside of the fire lanes. FD4. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. Such language shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) document and shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to Final Map clearance. FD5. Submit a copy of the Grading Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. Compliance required prior to Final Map clearance. a. The Grading Plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC - LA, epicla.lacounty.gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire — Land Development — City Request — Grading. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee(s) will be addressed. FD6. Submit the water plans indicating the new fire hydrant locations to the Land Development Unit for review. The required public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed buildings. a. The water plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epicla.lacounty.gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire — Land Development— City Request— Fire Hydrant. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will be addressed. Prior recordation, provide written verification that the required fire hydrants have been bonded for in lieu of installation. FD7. Prior recordation, provide written verification that the required fire hydrants have been bonded for in lieu of installation. Access Requirements FD8. The proposed project is required to provide a second means of access. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. Fire Code 503.1.2. FD9. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is Packet Pg. 297 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 37 of44 necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. FD 10. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4. FD 11. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments, and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD12. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. FD13. Fire Apparatus Access Road Width Requirements. The private on -site streets shall be incompliance of the Los Angeles Public Works "Private Driveway & Traffic Calming Design Guidelines Manual. a. For the Detached Single Family Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.2. b. For the Attached Multi -Family Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.2. FD14. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1. FD15. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Fire Code 503.2.5; Appendix D103.6, D103.6(1) & D103.6(2). FD 16. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds, and shall be surfaced so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Apparatus Access Roads having a grade of 10 percent or greater shall have apaved or concrete surface. Fire Code 503.2.3; Appendix D102.1. FD17. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not exceed 15 percent in grade. Fire Code 503.2.7; Appendix D 103.4. FD 18. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by Packet Pg. 298 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 38 of44 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code 503.3. FD19. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 and Section 503.2.2 shall be maintained at all times. Fire Code 503.4. FD20. Traffic Calming Devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.4.1. FD21. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the fire department access road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1. FD22. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1. FD23. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1. FD24. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Fire Code 504.5. FD25. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. Fire Code 503.1.2. FD26. Gate Requirements — The method of gate control shall be subject to review by the Fire Department, prior to clearance to proceed to public hearing. All gates, to control vehicular access, shall be in compliance with the following: Packet Pg. 299 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 39 of 44 a. The keypad location shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right- of-way. b. Provide a minimum 32-foot turning radius beyond the keypad, prior to the gate entrance at a minimum width of 20' for turnaround purposes. c. The gated entrance design with a single access point (ingress and egress) shall provide for a minimum width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way. d. Where the Fire Apparatus Access Road consists of a divided roadway, the gate width shall be not less than 20 feet. Each side of the roadway shall be clear -to -sky. e. Construction of gates shall be materials that allow manual operations by one person f. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. g. The security gate shall be provided with an approved means of emergency operation, and shall be maintained operational at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. h. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325 i. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200. j. All locking devices shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices. k. An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037 shall be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box shall be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6; Appendix D103.7. Water System Requirements FD27. All fire hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD28. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4. Packet Pg. 300 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 40 of 44 FD29. Planning Areas 1, IA, and 2 Fire Flow & Fire Hydrant Requirements: The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for one- and two-family dwellings, and Group R-3 buildings less than a total square footage of 3600 feet is 1250 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 1 hour with one public fire hydrant flowing. Any one- and two-family dwellings, and Group R-3 buildings 3601 square feet or greater shall comply to Table 13105.1 of the Fire Code in Appendix B. Install 7 public fire hydrants as noted on Sheets 2 & 3 of the revised plans dated September 15, 2020. FD30. Planning Areas 3 and 4 Fire Flow & Fire Hydrant Requirements: The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this project is 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two (2) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix 13105.1. The fire flow is subject to reduction with the of additional information. Install 14 public fire hydrants as noted on Sheets 2 & 3 of the revised plans dated September 15, 2020. FD31. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fuel Modification FD32. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to the issuance of the building permits. Please contact the Department's Fuel Modification Unit for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702- 2904. They may be reached at (626) 969-5205 or visit https://www. fire.Iacounty. gov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/_ FD33. For any questions regarding the report, please contact FPEA Wally Collins at (323) 890- 4243 or at Wally.Collins@fire.lacounty.gov. TRANSIT DIVISION TD1. The Transit Impact Fee does apply. Currently, the rate is $200 per residential unit. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the fee in place at the time of building permit issuance. Packet Pg. 301 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 41 of 44 TD2. Applicant shall be required to provide bus stops along Proposed Bouquet Canyon Road at both primary entrances to the project per most recent bus stop site plans. Stops shall be on the project (north) side of the street, west of the entrances. At these stops, a bus turnout/pullout and concrete pad shall be constructed to the required dimensions as determined by the Department of Public Works and the City's Transit Division. TD3. Applicant shall be required to provide a bus stop along Existing Bouquet Canyon Road east of "J" Street on the project (south) side of the street per most recent bus stop site plans. The following conditions apply to all bus stop locations: TD4. Applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the bus stops to the development. TD5. Bus stops may require additional right-of-way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer TD6. Bus stops shall consist of a 10' x 25' concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and include a stylized shelter, bench and trash receptacle. Proposed amenities shall be approved by City Transit staff prior to installation. Amenity specifications and all appropriate paperwork for the bus stops shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. TD7. The bus stops location shall be a minimum of 100' from the curb return or as specified by City staff. TDB. At the location of the bus stops, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 25' TD9. Applicant shall construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current City standard and APWA 131-1. TD10. The bus stops shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CalDag). Proposed disabled access shall be drawn on all plans. TD11. Bus stops shall be shown and labeled on the site plan. TD12. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stops shall be installed to the satisfaction of City staff. TD13. At all intersections where there are bus stops, there must be a safe, traffic -controlled way to cross the street. Packet Pg. 302 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 42 of 44 PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION PRI. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall pay the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element." The final fee is attached. The City Council currently has a temporary variance in place that allows the applicant to pay the fees prior to Building Permit: Project Description: Bou uet Canyon Integral Communities Tract/MC#� 18-089 Total Acres due !a Max. Park. Credit 6,62500 TOTAL 'FEES DUE WITH 301Y6 CREDIT= 4, 1 8,„000 TOTAL FEES DUE WITHOUT CREDIT= $5 940,(A)0 Estimate Reviewed by: .Belt Morrison Date: 4/30d2020 **The applicant will be required to provide a certified MAI real estate appraisal to establish the Fair Market Value (FMV) of an acre OU x, Population X 5 acres Ixr X 11FMpV _ Surr olai X 12 2 Ir Ueu Fore PR2. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall provide a Trail Plan showing the connectivity of all private parks, trails, trailheads, and open space. There is no private park credit for open spaces or trails. Based on the proposed private park amenities shown on current plan, the applicant will be eligible for the full 30% private park credit. PR3. The applicant shall provide a multi -use Class I trail from the proposed trail, near the park south of David Way, on west side of David Way up to the north side of Copper Hill Road, then continue the trail west to the Haskell Canyon Open Space. This trail shall include fencing, signage, and striping. PR4. The applicant shall provide Class II Bike Lanes on Bouquet Canyon Road in both directions. These lanes shall be to City Standards. PR5. The applicant shall construct a pedestrian bridge to span the proposed channel and provide a connection between the two portions of the linear park, Park I and Park 3 of the approved Park Exhibit. Packet Pg. 303 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 43 of 44 PR6. The applicant shall provide the following amenities at the trailhead parking lot; landscaping and irrigation, trees and shrubs, benches, picnic tables, kiosk for trails map, bike rack, hitching post, drinking fountain, water trough, bike fix it station, drive through parking for equestrian truck and trailer, DG surfacing in equestrian parking, AC for other parking spaces, on electric charging station for vehicles, trash cans, and trailhead monument sign to the satisfaction of the Director of Recreation & Community Services. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Drainage CPWLFor the proposed connection to the Bouquet Canyon Channel, as shown on the tentative map, and the potential encroachment into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District's (LACFCD) right of way/easement, the developer is required to obtain a Flood Permit from the LACFCD. For questions regarding the Flood Permit, please contact Mr. Anthony Wong of Public Works, Land Development Division, at (626) 458-3129 or AnWong@pw.lacounty.gov. Sewer CPW2. Sewer services must be provided for the County -owned facility at Assessor's Parcel No 2812-008-900 as part of the sewer realignment project. For questions regarding sewer conditions, please contact Ms. Imelda Ng of Public Works, Land Development Division, at (626) 458-3765 or INg@pw.lacounty.gov. Street CPW3.The proposed Bouquet Canyon Road, as shown on the tentative map, is determined to be consistent with the County's Master Plan of Highways as a secondary highway. The proposed project is expected to have a significant traffic impact to County and City of Santa Clarita roadways in the area. Consequently, the project is required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis to Public Works for review and approval. For questions regarding the traffic requirements, please contact Mr. Alan Nino of Public Works, Traffic Safety and Mobility Division, at (626) 300-4847 or ANino@pw.lacounty.gov. S:ACD\!PLANNING DIVISION\CURRENT\!2018\MC18-089 (Bouquet Canyon Realignment Project)A9. City Council\MC18-089 Draft Conditions.docx Packet Pg. 304 Exhibit A Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Conditions of Approval November 10, 2020 Page 44 of 44 ATTACHMENT A Preliminary Landscape Plan — Four copies of a landscape plan drawn to scale (minimum plan size 24' x 36") indicating: ❑ Project name and location, vicinity map, north arrow and scale (scale to match site plan), property lines and dimensions; label all adjacent streets and provide dimensions to centerline ❑ Date of preparation; date(s) of revisions, if applicable ❑ Name and contact information of the project landscape architect or designer ❑ Existing and proposed land use and zoning ❑ Lot square footage or acreage, proposed lot area for landscaping in square feet, percentage of parking lot area proposed for landscaping, ❑ Location of buildings, parking areas, vehicular/pedestrian circulation, etc. ❑ Location and dimensions of doorways, windows and overhangs, where applicable ❑ Location and dimensions of retaining walls, including top -of -wall and base -of -wall spot elevations ❑ Spot elevations indicating pad elevations, hardscape footing elevations, pathway elevations, retaining walls, and all other places where grade change would affect design implementation ❑ Location and dimensions of doorways, windows and overhangs, where applicable ❑ Location and dimensions of all ground -mounted mechanical, electrical, or other equipment, if known (air conditioner condensers, Edison transformer boxes, cable TV boxes, backflow preventers, fire equipment/backflow preventers, gang mailboxes, water, sewer, telephone, etc.) ❑ Location of existing and proposed easements ❑ Location and graphic dimensions of all existing and proposed trees and shrubs ❑ Location of all proposed and existing oak trees ❑ Location of all exterior light standards ❑ A Tree Legend in table form indicating symbol or abbreviation, botanical name, common name, size, quantity, and water usage (low, medium, high) ❑ A Plant Legend in table form for all shrubs and ground cover, indicating: symbol or abbreviation, botanical name, common name, size, quantity, water usage (low, medium, high), height and canopy diameter for mature shrubs. Replace height and width with typical spacing for groundcover plantings. ❑ Location, dimensions, and gradient (if applicable) of any turf area ❑ Notes indicating design intent at key locations (e.g. screening, entry treatment, streetscape, property line treatment, etc.). ❑ Detail pedestrian plazas/site furniture and enhanced paving if not shown on the plans. ❑ The height and design of all fencing, walls, trash enclosures, and/or adjacent development, including retaining walls, slopes, fences, etc., that could influence on - site landscaping. ❑ Irrigation system point -of -connection Packet Pg. 305 I g`6 k $ a d � I 8� I � p M � a < r U°arc o \r o �� o. 'i '� �./�/# a m 0 w N o< w �e I b p o LU zo � . e s g a a, _s 4, ��l n � a L r d t o ail a LU a x e m m 0 E fl, I 11",� jj .e n � � 11 I gg \ Z 1 6 l r I/ as o a e � o, y � W ROBIN AVE 3n1"'0, 0 b� awU o _ — _ ;1332i1_ 13NON0g ____—_SNITS/Y,3 Jgw 0 n U` Z 0 A g V g n IL t; o Lu Lu 10 A yvv am IL—u o u 'o o., oll 'o .o, o I o \ mi- J)d H All ®R AVENUE w < (Dzo X t7 133HS 33S 3NII HOiVIN °p osoa \ m w J Q �— LU w PRIVATE DRNE 0 R LANE w >- Q (D w C) z ry H z w W w U) Q a a Z N O � w pp Q � oM IL CC � O �'r R a� '�" I M � X��' ✓ �' � � `"'�+ � M r �`'' u�+ � � '�d y ?I� ` w a a � O > z LLJ p 2 1 s y < Q 1= o miiq ��1! ��E iE' WEmim q 0 LU I � r i✓ Err C �Y IN, w ail r�, w i AU LU / t / % r ui co t X / h � im>ilWwnl�o� mIF� 1/ m v I, V lu a � y p�U Q FW- �ZU QWm U`zo $ zw2 International, Inc. VWIIrMI "INAT9MMMA TABLE OF CONTENTS II°"'1 IY : 111Y'°°°III°"'IIII'° II II°"'1 IY Sk11111111C II""'1 IY YW IIYW IIIII........ IIY """III""'S XVII')IIII'° IIIII........ Y I""'0 III""' HARING2-SAwA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY 3-ROGER A 5-THOMAS HART PUBLIC7-Los ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF I CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY 11 -Los ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 12-CALIFORNLA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Sk11111111C II""'1 IY II IIII'° 1 A XVII')IIII'° IIIII........ 1 1 Y II""' I IIII'° II""'1 IY : 101 1 IGA I 10 N 10 0 N I"""III""' IR IIY IY IIII' I UNG II''°° IIII'° IIII'° IYW p %� �' Section 1 - INTRODUCTION This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Bouquet Canyon Project, prepared in accordance with Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The Final EIR incorporates the entire Draft EIR by reference, including all appendix materials. It consists of four sections, described below: Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the scope and content of the Final EIR and identifies the persons and organizations who submitted comments on the Draft EIR. Section 2: Comments and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. This section presents the comments on the Draft EIR and responses to each of the comments. Comments and responses for each author are provided, followed by a copy of their letter or email with brackets and numbers corresponding to the sequence of comments and responses that precede the actual comments. Draft EIR Public Review Process The Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day public review and comment period between April 6 - June 5, 2020. This time period exceeds the 45 days that is standard for a Draft EIR that has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse, as required by Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This extended period was established by the City, in recognition of the extraordinary circumstances associated with the worldwide pandemic known as "COVID-19" and related difficulties in accessing, reviewing and commenting on the Draft EIR materials. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and a copy of the Draft EIR were sent to 7 public agencies, published on the City's website, and placed at Santa Clarita City Hall. The NOA was also published in the Signal newspaper on April 4, 2020. The Draft EIR and technical appendices were submitted to the State Clearinghouse, in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, for a 60-day review period, as mentioned above, for review and comment by State agencies. A total of 1 1 comment letters and two emails were submitted to the City during this public review period, and 1 letter was submitted after the time period had expired (by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Section 2 of this document includes copies of these comments and the City's responses to these comments. The list of commenters is provided in the table below. LIST OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Comment Letter Authors 1 Jason Davenport 2 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy 3 Roger A Haring 4 Caltrans, District 7 5 Thomas Hart 6 Jim Crowley 7 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 8 Rita Maphis 9 George Brodt 10 Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency 1 1 Los Angeles County Fire Department 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 13 Roy Cole 14 Susan Maness Section 3: Errata and Revisions to Draft EIR. This section provides corrections, clarifications and updates to the information presented in the Draft EIR. A supplemental analysis of the project's effects on groundwater recharge is provided in this section. Updated project plans that reflect additional information to illustrate the proposed Copper Hill Drive Extension to Bouquet Canyon Road and the reconfiguration of the existing intersection of David Way and Bouquet Canyon Road are included in this section. Additional changes to the proposed development plan include a new street connection from Planning Area 1 to the new Bouquet Canyon Road, relocation of the main entrance from new Bouquet Canyon Road, and a modification to the low -flow pipe outlet design near the new Bouquet Canyon Road bridge. Please note that these changes do not represent significant new information that would result in a different finding regarding the project's environmental impacts or the severity thereof. Section 4: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be followed to implement the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The MMRP lists all of the mitigation measures, with corresponding actions to be taken, timing for monitoring of those actions, and the parties responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and monitoring those efforts to ensure they are accomplished as intended. 2 SEC TIO���N 211% COMMENTS AND RESPONS TO COMMENTS Jason Davenport Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Roger A Haring Caltrans District 7 Thomas Hart Jim Crowley Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Rita Maphis George Brodt Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Los Angeles County Fire Department California Department.of f A,, JASON DAVENPORT Responses to Comment Letter Number 1 by Jason Davenport, dated May 4, 2020 Comment 1: The new road construction from the Copper Hill Dr/David Way intersection is proposed to bend around the westerly tip of my property. From my understanding, this will be a two-lane road as it is currently proposed which directly affects the way in which I enter and exit my driveway. The "bending" of the road will create a blind corner that will make it extremely difficult to exit my driveway heading in the east direction onto Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. In addition, it will be extremely dangerous to enter my driveway (left turn) heading in the east direction on Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. I know this was a concern of nearby residents heading south down David Way because a median is being proposed to restrict a left-hand turn onto Copper Hill Dr heading east. Also, there is no indication of what the proposed speed limit will be on this road between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd. Will there be lighting for the street? A bike lane? A sidewalk for pedestrians? Response 1: The new roadway will be approximately 40 feet curb to curb. There will be an adequate width for a two-way left -turn lane or left -turn pocket to enter the driveway in the eastbound direction. Sight distance will be provided at the existing driveway through the construction of a retaining wall. The current speed limit on Copper Hill Drive is 45 mph. The new roadway segment is anticipated to have a similar speed limit. Since Copper Hill Drive/Bouquet Canyon Road will be a signalized three-way T intersection, actual speeds near this property may be reduced from the current condition. Speed limits are set by the City through the established Engineering and Traffic Survey process after the roadway is built. Street lighting will be provided on the new roadway segment. A bike lane will not be provided at this time. A sidewalk would be constructed along the south side of the roadway adjacent to PA-4. Comment 2: Page 3.1-30 states that new homes from viewing location 4 will be set back from the new road approximately 25-40' from Bouquet Canyon Rd. What are the city's requirements for setbacks? Safety is my concern related to the current or future infrastructure that will be in close proximity to this new road constructed around the westerly tip of my property. What is the setback for the current road proposal? Response 2: Residential structures within Planning Area 4, opposite Mr. Davenport's property, would be required to maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from the future right-of-way of Bouquet Canyon Road in this area. The proposed project would widen the existing segment of this road by 14 feet along the site frontage. With the proposed building setback of 20 feet behind the right -of way, the new homes would rest a minimum 26 feet from the future southern edge (curb) of the new Copper Hill Road connector and a minimum of 60 feet from the existing northern edge of Bouquet Canyon Road. The typical PA-4 structural setback ranges between 30 and 40 feet from the new Copper Hill Road connector southern curb and 70+ feet from the existing northern edge of Bouquet Canyon Road. `di Comment 3: 1 am also concerned about the driveway that is proposed to service the residents in PA4. It appears that the location will be directly across from my property and slightly off set from my personal driveway. Again, this will pose a hazard to vehicles entering and exiting in both westerly and easterly directions on Copper Hill Dr. I can see a scenario where four directions of traffic meet together in an uncontrolled intersection. Vehicles currently travel at speeds of up to 45-60+ mph in both directions regularly. The addition of a blind "sharp" curve and a new driveway that will service 85 m ulti-family units, can only create an unsafe intersection and must be corrected. What mitigation measure(s) will be created to correct this condition? Response 3: The new roadway will be approximately 40 feet curb to curb and will have adequate width to provide a two-way left -turn lane or left -turn pockets that can be used to enter the driveways. The driveway serving residents in PA-4 will be under stop control. Comment 4: Referencing page 3-12.9 the City of Santa Clarita and LA County desire a LOS of C or better in residential areas. Is Copper Hill Rd, between Kathleen Ave and the proposed New Bouquet Canyon Rd, considered a residential area? Furthermore, is it part of the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element to convert this section of road from a 2-lane to 4-lane (secondary highway) in the future? Response 4: The segment of Copper Hill Road between Kathleen Avenue and New Bouquet Canyon Road is designated in the City General Plan as a secondary highway, which is intended to service through traffic, and to collect traffic from collector and local streets. The standard section for a Secondary is 4-lanes and the decision to widen it from 2-lanes to 4-lanes would be determined by the City based on various factors, such as traffic volumes. With the estimated traffic counts of a fully developed -Bouquet Canyon Project, specifically at PA-4, it does not warrant the widening of this segment of Copper Hill Road. Comment 5: Policy C 1.17: "Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public, including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all transportation systems." If the goal of the city is to maintain a "residential" area that promotes safety and convenience to the traveling public, what mitigation measures will be made to ensure this policy is met in the subject area? Response 5: Mitigation measures have been proposed that improve the current roadway conditions for motorists as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. These include lane improvements at intersections, installation of traffic controls (i.e., traffic signals, stop signs), crosswalks, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and street lighting. Refer to Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 to 3.12-12 for mitigation measures at intersections and page 3.12-18 in the Draft EIR, for the local circulation pattern discussion, 154 Comment 6: Policy C 1.2.8: "Provide safe pedestrian connections across barriers, which may include but are not limited to major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls." By eliminating the intersection at Bouquet Canyon Rd and David Way and creating a sharp curve, there are no safe pedestrian connections to cross the street to access the Saugus area on foot or bike. What will be done to ensure this objective will be met? Response 6: Marked crosswalks will be provided at the new traffic signal to be installed at the New Copper Hill Drive/New Bouquet Canyon Road intersection and at the new traffic signal to be installed at the Kathleen Avenue/Copper Hill Drive intersection where pedestrians can cross the street to access the Saugus area on foot or bike. The new intersection at New Copper Hill Drive/New Bouquet Canyon Road will be designed to City standards to include a traffic signal with pedestrian crossing phases, marked crosswalks, and safety lighting. Intersection modifications at Kathleen Avenue /Copper Hill Drive will also be designed per City Standards. Comment 7: Policy C 1.2.1 1: "Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart growth concepts." This objective will not be met, in that the proposed traffic mitigation measures are flawed. More to follow regarding this. Response 7: This comment does not specify which traffic mitigations are allegedly "flawed" as ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled; therefore, no response can be provided. It is also noted that no significant impacts related to the project's vehicle miles traveled were identified in the Draft EIR or in this comment. As discussed on p. 3.12-28 of the Draft EIR, the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would provide a one -quarter mile shorter and more direct route, compared to the existing segment, thus reducing the total distances of vehicles traveling along Bouquet Canyon Road in this area. The proposed project is located in an area where neighborhoods of single family homes already exist that are served by existing local commercial uses and recreation opportunities. As such, the project would not create housing in an area that would require longer than typical driving distances for various commuting, shopping, dining or recreation purposes. Comment 8: Policy C 2.1.4: "Ensure that future dedication and acquisition of right-of- way is based on the adopted Circulation Plan, proposed land uses, and projected demand." If the Circulation Plan calls for a secondary (4-lane) highway to be created between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd, is this proposal of a two-lane residential road in compliance with this policy? With the knowledge of future development of both residential and commercial property north on Bouquet Canyon Rd, will the City of Santa Clarita adhere to the adopted Circulation Plan that proposes Copper Hill Dr to be constructed through my property? Response 8: The Circulation Element was developed based on analysis of existing conditions in the Valley, future development in both City and County areas, and anticipated growth. Roadway infrastructure improvements are made as growth occurs in the Valley and needs are assessed continually by the City. The growth of both 1-3 residential and commercial property is driven by the market and the development of the Circulation Element (from the General Plan) is driven by the community's mobility needs. As stated on in Response 4, future needs in improving Copper Hill Drive to its designated 4-lane secondary highway configuration will be assessed by the City as conditions evolve; however, the traffic impact analysis prepared for the Draft EIR determined that with a fully -built Bouquet Canyon Project, the need for a four -lane segment is not indicated. Comment 9: Policy C 2.1.5: "At the time of project level review, monitor levels of service, traffic accident patterns, and physical conditions of the existing street system, and upgrade roadways as needed through the Capital Improvement Program." 1 have concerns about the traffic study that was completed and the data that was used in this EIR. More to follow regarding this. Response 9: This comment indicates unspecified concerns about the traffic study included in the EIR as it relates to Circulation Element Policy C 2.15. Without specific statements of these concerns, no response can be provided. Comment 10: Policy C 7.1.8: "Upgrading streets that are not pedestrian -friendly due to lack of sidewalk connections, safe street crossing points, vehicle sight distance, or other design deficiencies." 1 touched on this above, but this policy specifically calls out vehicle sight distance as a design deficiency. What mitigation measure will be taken to the proposed road construction to correct this deficiency? Response 10: Adequate sight distance will be provided at the existing driveway through the construction of a retaining wall. Also, refer to Responses 5 and 6, above. Comment 11: The proposed road extension from the intersection at Copper Hill Dr and David Way around the westerly tip of my property to the existing Bouquet Canyon Rd would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. This proposal creates both a "sharp" blind curve and a dangerous intersection. Both of which violate the thresholds stated above and both create a significant environmental impact related to transportation. What mitigation measure(s) will be taken to correct these impacts? Response 11: Adequate line of sight will be provided based on the design speed with the construction of a retaining wall. Comment 12: There is no account for turn pocket overflow. If vehicles are spilling out of a turn pocket or through vehicles are blocking a turn pocket (right or left turns onto David Way north bound from Bouquet Canyon Rd or right turns onto David Way south 1-4 bound from Copper Hill Dr to a left hand turn on Bouquet Canyon Rd in the east bound direction), the delay that would occur in the field is not included in the models output. Response 12: The delay that is reported in the traffic study represents the average vehicle delay at the intersection. It considers the delay of each movement and accounts for queuing delay as shown in the traffic study worksheet calculations provided in the DEIR Appendix J. The movements noted above (right or left turns onto David Way northbound from Bouquet Canyon Road or right turns onto David Way southbound from Copper Hill Drive to a left hand turn on Bouquet Canyon Road in the eastbound direction) would be eliminated. The traffic study utilizes industry standard methodologies and is consistent with the City's preferred methodology. Comment 13: There is no account of spillback and starvation delay caused by closely spaced intersections. The HCM Delay model does not include any delay for queue spillback or starvation. The area in question contains two closely spaced intersections (Bouquet Canyon Rd/David Way and David Way/Copper Hill Dr). Did the HMC method that was used model the delays caused by the two closely spaced intersections? Response 13: The delay calculation presented in the traffic study account for both vehicle stopped delay and queue delay as shown as shown in the traffic study worksheet calculations provided in the DEIR Appendix J. The analysis was prepared utilizing Synchro software which accounts for model delay when intersections are close to each other and accounts for spillback and starvation delay that is caused by closely spaces intersections. The proposed mitigation measures would close the Bouquet Canyon Road/David Way intersection, thereby eliminating the two existing closely space intersections. Comment 14: Does the traffic study take into consideration external factors that might have been present during October 2018? During this time, there was an ongoing city Road Rehab initiative that specifically targeted a section of Plum Canyon Rd south of the proposed project between Santa Catarina Rd and Via Joyce. Did this road construction have any bearing on the study? Additionally, there was a fire that occurred during the month in question in the Saugus area. Were potential road closures caused by the fire factored into the study? Response 14: The traffic study evaluated traffic conditions under multiple scenarios, existing, existing plus project, and future cumulative conditions. Therefore, the identification of traffic related impacts is not solely reliant on existing traffic counts. Traffic counts were collected mid -October, which was before the October 31, 2018 2- acre brush fire near Soledad Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. Therefore, there were no road closures caused by the fire at that time. 11M Comment 15: In summary, the HCM Methodology is a macroscopic model that contains flaws and does not accurately reflect the current, or future, LOS of the areas in question. I would recommend a microscopic simulation model be used to gain a better and more accurate understanding of the current and future traffic levels in the area north of the proposed project. Response 15: The HCM delay -based methodology is the preferred methodology of the City when evaluating traffic operations at signalize intersections and is consistent with the methodology used for this analysis. Synchro software was used in the traffic study, which includes enhancements over the basic HCM methodology, such as a method to model delay when intersections are close to each other and accounts for spillback and starvation delay that is caused by closely spaces intersections. Comment 16: With all of that said, even after the use of a macroscopic model, the data has confirmed that the David Way/Bouquet Canyon intersection will be drastically impacted by the addition of this project. This data is confirmed in table 3.12-5. To mitigate the forecasted level F LOS, it has been proposed to eliminate the intersection in question. In my opinion eliminating an intersection will not deter commuters traveling in the east/west directions across the SCV. Copper Hill Dr is the preferred route of travel across the north part of the SCV, and realigning Bouquet Canyon Rd will not change or alter this. Response 16: The purpose of closing the David Way/Bouquet Canyon Road intersection is not to deter commuters traveling in the east/west direction across the SCV. The roadways are being redesigned to better accommodate commuter and local traffic and the redesign is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. Comment 17: Tables 3.12-7 and 3.12-8 summarize traffic data for future (cumulative) conditions (2028) with and without project and, with and without mitigation. It is clear that an increase of traffic is expected with or without the project. As I stated above, one of the mitigation measures to deal with the increase in traffic is to delete the intersection of David Way/Bouquet Canyon. However, in table 3.12-7 (Intersection 21) there is mention of a level of LOS F is to be expected if this intersection is under stop control. There will be a significant increase in left hand turns onto Copper Hill Dr (heading in the east direction) for north bound traffic on the New Bouquet Cy Rd. Additionally, as mentioned above, the east/west commuters are for more likely to be turning right, heading southbound on Bouquet Canyon Rd, onto Copper Hill Dr to commute around congested city traffic and multiple stop lights to access Interstate 5 in the A.M. The some can be said for the P.M. commute but in the opposite direction. What is the city's plan for controlling the intersection in question? Will there be a traffic signal? Will south bound traffic on Bouquet Canyon Rd be required to stop when making a turn onto Copper Hill Dr or will it be a yield? Response 17: A traffic signal is proposed at the New Copper Hill Drive and New Bouquet Canyon Road intersection. Southbound traffic will be required to stop if there is a red light. Mitigation Measures 3.12-3 describes the intersection control. Comment 18: Page 13.12-28 details mitigation measure of Impact 3.12c as "None." `Mitigation Measures None. Impact 3.12c: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project roadways would be constructed in accordance with the City's design standards. The project also includes the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road in accordance with the General Plan designation of a Secondary Highway. With the realignment, any existing design features that are hazardous would be corrected. The project would construct street improvements that provide space for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. Furthermore, the Project would not construct any incompatible uses that are not consistent with the surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to the Project's geometric design features. Impacts in this regard are less than significant." I would argue that the sharp curve that will be created by converting two 90- degree intersections (David Way/Copper Hill and David Way/Bouquet Canyon) into an extreme bend will substantially increase hazardous traffic conditions. As you can imagine, this is of the utmost importance to me and the safety of my family. If the road is to be constructed in the manner being proposed, the only route that my family will have to access to/from our property is by way of an uncontrolled intersection in extremely close proximity to a blind, sharp curve. This impact must be corrected and not dismissed so easily or without appropriate mitigation measures. Response 18: Line of sight from the existing driveway will be provided with the construction of a retaining wall to hold back the existing natural slope. Comment 19: On page 3.15-17 information is offered regarding evacuation possibilities during a potential wildfire with the project being constructed. Once again, the road directly north of the development is in question and the following quote is alarming considering how prevalent wildfires have become in the recent past. "If the hypothetical "worst -case" condition involving 375 homes evacuating and all drivers electing to escape to the north, via existing two-lane Bouquet Canyon IRA Road to the north of the project, the peak hour VIC would increase to 1.06, indicating more than the capacity of the northbound lane. This represents severely congested conditions with difficult and highly constrained traffic flow and would represent a serious constraint to evacuating motorists." As a concerned resident, who lives directly north of the development and on the street in question, what mitigation measures will be taken to ensure that a "severely congested condition" will not occur in the event of a "worst -case" condition? The following quote is subjective and provides no real plan of evacuation other than "it is unlikely." "The two hypothetical worst -case conditions noted above where project residents evacuating the site could encounter and complicate congested peak hour roadway conditions are unlikely to occur, since it is unlikely that all of the escaping motorists would select the some routes after exiting the project site. It is more likely that motorists would select the route and direction that they believe would take them most quickly away from whatever direction a wildfire might be approaching." The hypothetical of this "worst -case condition" could easily become a reality with one road closure on Bouquet Canyon Rd, south of the development. Furthermore, to dismiss this scenario as not needing any mitigation measures is subjective and irresponsible. This is the direct quote: "Mitigation measures would not be required. Impact 3.15-b: The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not create conditions that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire." Response 19: The first part of this comment refers to hypothetical worst -case emergency evacuation conditions where all of the project's residents would depart by vehicle to escape to the north via Bouquet Canyon Road, at the same time, during the highest peak hour volume traffic conditions. The comment further states that this hypothetical condition could occur if Bouquet Canyon Road to the south of the project were to be closed during this emergency scenario. It is possible that Bouquet Canyon Road, south of the project site, could be closed due to some extraordinary circumstances, e.g., a wildfire obstructing that part of the road. Should that occur, residents of the 78 homes in Planning Area 4 could elect to escape to the west, via the proposed Copper Hill Drive extension or to Alaminos Drive, via the existing Bouquet Canyon Road segment. Further, as noted on p. 3.15-17, the existing emergency response and evacuation command structure is expected to be able to guide the directions and timing of emergency evacuations to direct fleeing residents in the optimum directions and to manage conditions to prevent or minimize bottlenecks from occurring. The last part of this comment refers to the Draft EIR finding concerning Impact 3.15b and states a disagreement with the conclusion that the project would not exacerbate 1-8 wildfire hazards and thus would not require mitigation measures. This particular impact threshold is focused on potential secondary impacts from a wildfire that could expose project residents or others to harmful pollution concentrations. As discussed on page 3.15-18 of the Draft EIR, the project would reduce potential wildland fire hazards compared to existing conditions, due to removal of flammable vegetation, construction of an on -site pressurized water system and improved site access plus a paved internal street system to support fire suppression efforts, build structures with ignition resistant materials, and provide extensive non-flammable `fuel modification' landscape zones to inhibit the spread of wildfire through the project site. Given these features, which are required for this and any other projects to be built in a high fire hazard severity zone, the project would not exacerbate wildland fire hazards. Further, the new residential community would not introduce unique or more pollutant -intensive building materials that could provide a significant source of air pollution in the event of wide -spread burning within the built environment. Comment 20: The last topic of concern regarding Transportation are the Cumulative impacts mentioned on pages 4.0-19 through 4.0-23. There are 66 ongoing/proposed projects in the Santa Clarita surrounding area that are going to have significant traffic impacts to city and county roadways. The projects directly north of the development in question, (#61: Overland 1 and #62: Overland 2) appear to be of concern and mitigation measures have been proposed to address this. Additionally, projects #41 and #46 have direct impacts to future traffic in the area. With this said, will the City of Santa Clarita be proactive in converting the stretch of Copper Hill Rd between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd into a four -lane secondary highway? What does the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element call for and will it be strictly adhered to now or in the future, considering there are multiple developments on the horizon? Response 20: The Circulation Element was developed based on analysis of existing conditions in the Valley, future development in both City and County areas, and anticipated growth. Refer to Response 4. Comment 21: On page 5.0-3 the EIR states: "Transportation and Traffic The fully developed and occupied residential community would generate approximately 3,092 vehicle trips a day, including 215 in the morning peak hour and 290 in the late afternoon peak hour. This traffic would result in significant congestion impacts at two intersections in the existing conditions scenario, and significant congestion impacts at nine intersections in the 2028 scenario. A variety of intersection improvements such as new traffic signals, traffic signal synchronization, and increased capacity for through and turning movements would be required to improve levels of service to meet the City's performance standards." `Ia Given both the cumulative and the direct impacts mentioned above, what mitigation measures will be taken to meet the City's performance standards? Response 21: Mitigation measures that would achieve the City's level of service (LOS) performance standards for the impacted intersections are listed in the Draft EIR as measures 3.12-1 thru 3.12-12, in Section 3.12 Transportation of the Draft EIR. The improvements in LOS resulting from these measures were calculated in the Traffic Study provided as Appendix J of the Draft EIR and are shown in Tables 3.12-6 (Existing -Plus Project) and 3.12-8 (Interim Year 2028 With Project) in the Draft EIR. Comment 22: A Sensitive Receptor is defined as follows: " 3.2.1.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The following types of people are most likely to be adversely affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day-care facilities, elder -care facilities, elementary schools, and parks." The neighborhoods around the proposed project contain multiple sensitive receptors and according to the City's General Plan the following goals and policies have been created to protect said individuals. "Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land use from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities; dry cleaners using perchloroethylene; and large gas stations, as recommended by CARB." These guidelines have been established to protect sensitive receptors now and in the future. In addition to these guidelines CEQA guidelines have been developed in order to identify thresholds that determine the significance of the environmental effects of a project. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" I understand that mitigation measures MM 3.2-a and MM 3.2-b are being recommended to reduce emissions caused by the construction of the development. What is the City of Santa Clarita's stance on these measures, knowing that prior to these measures being potentially implemented, the data supports that sensitive receptors will Intel be at risk of exposure to particles and potential pollutants? Will there be a plan in place to have the air quality surrounding the project tested to ensure mitigation measures are, in fact, working and being reported regularly? Will the surrounding public be notified of the results of such a test? Response 22: The referenced construction air quality mitigation measures are required to reduce the daily levels of diesel exhaust emissions from on -site construction machinery and grading haul trucks to below the South Coast Air Quality Management District regional threshold for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), an ozone precursor, and local significance thresholds for coarse and fine-grained particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Regional thresholds pertain to the release of pollutants that disperse into the atmosphere and travel well beyond the vicinity of the project site to interact with other air pollutants across the air basin. Local thresholds pertain to concentrations of air pollutants in the immediate vicinity of the construction source of such emissions. The City's Public Works Department would require documentation providing evidence of compliance with these measures, prior to commencement of any grading activities. These measures would be included in the construction specifications and grading permit and construction contractors would be obligated to implement these measures throughout the entire grading program. Grading activities would be regularly monitored by the City's Engineering Services Division. Failure to adhere to these measures could result in work stoppages or other penalties. Comment 23: NOISE Table 3.10-2 illustrates Noise Measures. However, the data used was collected in March - April 2019 during non -peak traffic hours. The time of day when data was collected was 10:00 a.m. - 1 1:30 a.m. If the data were collected during normal commute hours (6:00 - 9:00 a.m. or 3:00 -6:00 p.m., M - F) the noise results would be more accurate and most likely prove higher levels of noise. Regardless of this non -accurate sample, the results still show high levels of noise. The threshold of 70 CNEL was exceeded 69 times on Bouquet Canyon Rd between Plum Canyon and Northeast of David way. According to Table 3.10-4, the residential land use categories show unacceptable community noise conditions when CNEL reaches 70 or higher. Response 23: The ambient noise level measurements referred to in this comment, which are noted in Table 3.10-2 of the Draft EIR, were taken near sensitive receptor locations around the project site, to identify typical outdoor noise levels affecting these receptors. These measurements were not used to calculate exiting or future roadway noise levels. Instead, as discussed in Section 3.10.2. of the Draft EIR, roadway noise levels were calculated with the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Noise Prediction Model, based on traffic volumes, average speeds represented by the posted speed limit, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The model does not account for ambient noise levels. `nsi The statement that "the threshold of 70 CNEL was exceeded 69 times on Bouquet Canyon Rd between Plum Canyon and Northeast of David way" is not referenced and this information does not appear in the Draft EIR chapter on noise impacts. Table 3.10-6 in the Draft EIR identifies existing and existing -plus project roadway noise levels on the surrounding street network. As shown therein, there are no roadway segments in the traffic study area network where existing or existing plus project traffic levels result in roadway noise levels above 70 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Roadway noise levels of 70 dBA CNEL would occur within 100 feet or less of the roadway centerline, in all locations. Further, the project related increase in roadway noise would be a maximum of 0.7 dBA, well below the 3.0 dBA increase considered significant. Based on these roadway noise modeling results, the project would not result in a significant impact on roadway noise levels. Comment 24: According to The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) Noise Ordinance provides exterior noise standards within the City. Standard 1 1.44.040 Noise Limits states: "A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels ... sound levels dB of 65 (day) and 55 (night) in any residential areas." As stated above, the sound levels recorded are already above the standards set forth by the SCMC without the addition of 3,092 vehicle trips/day (215 in the AM and 290 in the PM) according to the flawed traffic study cited above. Furthermore, the EIR cites goals and policies from The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element that are applicable to the project. Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Objective N 1.1: Protect the health and safety of the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels Response 24: The Santa Clarita Municipal Code section referenced in this comment pertains to noise sources generated within one property and the noise level those sources create on adjoining properties. This does not apply to roadway noise generated by vehicular traffic, which is addressed in the preceding comment/response 23. The reference to Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element Goal N 1 and Objective N 1.1 are noted. INK Comment 25: Policy N 1.1.1: Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines [see Table 3.10-4], which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise." As mentioned above the noise levels are already above the CNEL threshold as stated in the Table 3.70-4. What mitigation measures will the City take to correct these conditions? Response 25: As discussed in the response to comment 23, the project would not result in significant changes in roadway noise levels and would not cause existing noise sensitive land uses to be exposed to exterior noise levels considered unacceptable as defined in General Plan Policy N l .l .l . As such, mitigation measures are not required. Comment 26: Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. o Objective N 2.1: Prevent and mitigate adverse effects of noise generated from traffic on arterial streets and highways through implementing noise reduction standards and programs. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise -sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate." What sound barriers are going to be constructed to prevent the increase in traffic noise of the proposed 2-lane road that wraps around the west and south perimeters of my property? How will these barriers affect egress and ingress? Will these barriers add to the danger of the blind, "sharp" curve proposed? The City certainly cannot expect the property owner to take on the financial responsibility and burden of constructing sound barriers? Response 26: As discussed in the response to comment 23, the project would not result in significant changes in roadway noise levels and would not cause existing noise sensitive land uses to be exposed to exterior noise levels considered unacceptable as defined in General Plan Policy N l .l .l . As such, mitigation measures such as sound barriers along the adjacent roadway segments are not required. Comment 27: Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate." What sort of "encouragement" will the City recommend in constructing the appropriate noise absorbing barriers around my property? Again, is the City expecting the property owner to take on this responsibility? Response 27: Please refer to the preceding response to comment 26. Comment 28: The westerly tip of my property contains a fully functional well. In addition to this, I have both a city water supply source and a natural gas source that I am extremely concerned about. What sort of mitigation measures are going to be `M implemented to ensure that I do not have interruptions in service for any utilities? What guarantee will be given that the road construction will not damage the vitality of my well and/or other utilities? Response 28: As with any new construction project, contractors would be obligated under existing regulations and industry standards to determine locations of underground and overhead utility lines prior to construction, and to devise construction alignments and methods to avoid damage to existing facilities. These are routine requirements and will be enforced through the City's plan check and construction inspection procedures. Comment 29: Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft EIR. However, I do trust my legitimate concerns as a homeowner, resident, and parent will be taken into serious consideration well before this project is approved, finalized and construction begins. As mentioned earlier, I am most concerned about the safety of my family - my son in particular- who will be getting his driver's license in the near future. Bouquet Canyon Rd is the only way to exit and enter my property. I currently have three access points on the southern border to access this road, two of which are extremely close to the western tip of my property. I want to make sure that the people I love and care about can access and exit our home and property safely. Additionally, my son who I mentioned above, has cystic fibrosis, a life -threatening lung disease, which classifies him in the "sensitive receptor" group defined in this report. So, you can see why I am extremely concerned about the air quality, too, that will be compromised during the construction and future development of the project directly across the street from my home. Response 29: This comment provides concluding statements that reference concerns expressed and responded to earlier and highlight the author's concerns about protecting his family during construction and as result of development of the project. These comments are noted and have been provided to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. `dEII May 4, 2020 Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR SCH No. 201812009 Dear Hai Nguyen: I appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the Draft EIR for the subject property. The main concerns I have with the Environmental Impact Analysis are directly related to the Transportation, Air Quality and Noise sections of which I have addressed below. 1. TRANSPORTATION The new road construction from the Copper Hill Dr/David Way intersection is proposed to bend around the westerly tip of my property. From my understanding, this will be a two-lane road as it is currently proposed which directly affects the way in which I enter and exit my driveway. The "bending" of the road will create a blind corner that will make it extremely difficult to exit my driveway heading in the east direction onto Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. In addition, it will be extremely dangerous to enter my driveway (left turn) heading in the east direction on Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. I know this was a concern of nearby residents heading south down David Way because a median is being proposed to restrict a left-hand turn onto Copper Hill Dr heading east. Also, there is no indication of what the proposed speed limit will be on this road between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd. Will there be lighting for the street? A bike lane? A sidewalk for pedestrians? Page 3.1-30 states that new homes from viewing location 4 will be set back from the new road approximately 25-40' from Bouquet Canyon Rd. What are the city's requirements for setbacks? Safety is my concern related to the current or future infrastructure that will be in close proximity to this new road constructed around the westerly tip of my property. What is the setback for the current road proposal? I am also concerned about the driveway that is proposed to service the residents in PA4. It appears that the location will be directly across from my property and slightly off set from my personal driveway. Again, this will pose a hazard to vehicles entering and exiting in both westerly and easterly directions on Copper Hill Dr. I can see a scenario where four directions of traffic meet together in an uncontrolled intersection. Vehicles currently travel at speeds of up to 45- 60+ mph in both directions regularly. The addition of a blind "sharp" curve and a new driveway that will service 85 multi -family units, can only create an unsafe intersection and must be corrected. What mitigation measure(s) will be created to correct this condition? Referencing page 3-12.9 the City of Santa Clarita and LA County desire a LOS of C or better in residential areas. Is """" """" Copper Hill Rd, between Kathleen Ave and the proposed New Bouquet Canyon Rd, considered a residential area? Furthermore, is it part of the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element to convert this section of road from a 2- m lane to 4-lane (secondary highway) in the future? Directly referencing pages 3.12-9, 3.12-10 and 3.12-12, the goals and objectives to create a Multi -Modal Circulation Network, Street and Highway System and Pedestrian Circulation are as follows: Goal C 1: An inter -connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes, provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans. o Objective C 1.1: Provide multi -modal circulation systems that move people and goods efficiently while protecting environmental resources and quality of life. Goal C 2: A unified and well -maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers, while maintaining community character. o Objective C 2.1: Implement the Circulation Plan (as shown on Exhibit C-2) for streets and highways to meet existing and future travel demands for mobility, access, connectivity, and capacity. Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable and viable alternative to driving for local destinations. o Objective C 7.1: continuous, integrated system of safe and attractive pedestrian walkways, paseos and trails linking residents to parks, open space, schools, services, and transit." link It is my opinion that the proposed changes to roadways north of proposed development do not satisfactorily meet the goals or objectives above. • Policy C1.17: "Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public, including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all transportation systems." If the goal of the city is to maintain a "residential" area that promotes safety and convenience to the traveling public, what mitigation measures will be made to ensure this policy is met in the subject area? • Policy C 1.2.8: "Provide safe pedestrian connections across barriers, which may include but are not limited to major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls." By eliminating the intersection at Bouquet Canyon Rd and David Way and creating a sharp curve, there are no safe pedestrian connections to cross the street to access the Saugus area on foot or bike. What will be done to ensure this objective will be met? • Policy C 1.2.11: "Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart growth concepts." This objective will not be met, in that the proposed traffic mitigation measures are flawed. More to follow regarding this. • Policy C 2.1.4: "Ensure that future dedication and acquisition of right-of-way is based on the adopted Circulation Plan, proposed land uses, and projected demand." If the Circulation Plan calls for a secondary (4-lane) highway to be created between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd, is this proposal of a two-lane residential road in compliance with this policy? With the knowledge of future development of both residential and commercial property north on Bouquet Canyon Rd, will the City of Santa Clarita adhere to the adopted Circulation Plan that proposes Copper Hill Dr to be constructed through my property? • Policy C 2.1.5: "At the time of project level review, monitor levels of service, traffic accident patterns, and physical conditions of the existing street system, and upgrade roadways as needed through the Capital V Improvement Program." I have concerns about the traffic study that was completed and the data that was used in this EIR. More to follow regarding this. • Policy C 7.1.8: "Upgrading streets that are not pedestrian -friendly due to lack of sidewalk connections, safe street crossing points, vehicle sight distance, or other design deficiencies." I touched on this above, but "'"" this policy specifically calls out vehicle sight distance as a design deficiency. What mitigation measure will be taken to the proposed road construction to correct this deficiency? Page 3.12-13 details Thresholds of Significance. The direct quote is as follows: "The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, as amended through December 31, 2019, serve as the basis for identifying thresholds determining the significance of the environmental effects of a project. Accordingly, a project will have a significant environmental impact related to transportation if it would: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 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." The proposed road extension from the intersection at Copper Hill Dr and David Way around the westerly tip of my property to the existing Bouquet Canyon Rd would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. This proposal creates both a "sharp" blind curve and a dangerous intersection. Both of which violate the thresholds stated above and both create a significant environmental impact related to transportation. What mitigation measure(s) will be taken to correct these impacts? ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY The HCM Delay Methodology used during the traffic study was for the period of October 2018. This method has the following limitations: There is no account for turn pocket overflow. If vehicles are spilling out of a turn pocket or through vehicles are blocking a turn pocket (right or left turns onto David Way north bound from Bouquet Canyon Rd or right 1 turns onto David Way south bound from Copper Hill Dr to a left hand turn on Bouquet Canyon Rd in the east bound direction), the delay that would occur in the field is not included in the models output. There is no account of spillback and starvation delay caused by closely spaced intersections. The HCM Delay model does not include any delay for queue spillback or starvation. The area in question contains two 13 closely spaced intersections (Bouquet Canyon Rd/David Way and David Way/Copper Hill Dr). Did the HMC method that was used model the delays caused by the two closely spaced intersections? Does the traffic study take into consideration external factors that might have been present during October 2018? During this time, there was an ongoing city Road Rehab initiative that specifically targeted a section of Plum Canyon1 Rd south of the proposed project between Santa Catarina Rd and Via Joyce. Did this road construction have any bearing on the study? Additionally, there was a fire that occurred during the month in question in the Saugus area. Were potential road closures caused by the fire factored into the study? In summary, the HCM Methodology is a macroscopic model that contains flaws and does not accurately reflect the current, or future, LOS of the areas in question. I would recommend a microscopic simulation model be used to gain 15 a better and more accurate understanding of the current and future traffic levels in the area north of the proposed project. With all of that said, even after the use of a macroscopic model, the data has confirmed that the David Way/Bouquet Canyon intersection will be drastically impacted by the addition of this project. This data is confirmed in table 3.12-5. To mitigate the forecasted level F LOS, it has been proposed to eliminate the intersection in question. In my opinion 1 eliminating an intersection will not deter commuters traveling in the east/west directions across the SCV. Copper Hill Dr is the preferred route of travel across the north part of the SCV, and realigning Bouquet Canyon Rd will not change or alter this. Tables 3.12-7 and 3.12-8 summarize traffic data for future (cumulative) conditions (2028) with and without project and, with and without mitigation. It is clear that an increase of traffic is expected with or without the project. As I stated above, one of the mitigation measures to deal with the increase in traffic is to delete the intersection of David Way/Bouquet Canyon. However, in table 3.12-7 (Intersection 21) there is mention of a level of LOS F is to be expected if this intersection is under stop control. There will be a significant increase in left hand turns onto Copper „^ Hill Dr (heading in the west direction) for north bound traffic on the New Bouquet Cy Rd. Additionally, as mentioned above, the east/west commuters are far more likely to be turning right, heading southbound on Bouquet Canyon Rd, onto Copper Hill Dr to commute around congested city traffic and multiple stop lights to access Interstate 5 in the A.M. The same can be said for the P.M. commute but in the opposite direction. What is the city's plan for controlling the intersection in question? Will there be a traffic signal? Will south bound traffic on Bouquet Canyon Rd be required to stop when making a turn onto Copper Hill Dr or will it be a yield? Page 13.12-28 details mitigation measure of Impact 3.12c as "None." • `Mitigation Measures None. Impact 3.12c: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project roadways would be constructed in accordance with the City's design standards. The project also includes the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road in accordance with the General Plan designation of a Secondary Highway. With the realignment, any existing design features that are hazardous would be corrected. The project would construct street improvements that provide space for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. Furthermore, the Project would not construct any incompatible uses that are not consistent with the surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to the Project's geometric design features. Impacts in this regard are less than significant." I would argue that the sharp curve that will be created by converting two 90-degree intersections (David Way/Copper Hill and David Way/Bouquet Canyon) into an extreme bend will substantially increase hazardous traffic conditions. As you can imagine, this is of the utmost importance to me and the safety of my family. If the road is to be constructed in the manner being proposed, the only route that my family will have to access to/from our property is by way of an uncontrolled intersection in extremely close proximity to a blind, sharp curve. This impact must be corrected and not dismissed so easily or without appropriate mitigation measures. IE On page 3.15-17 information is offered regarding evacuation possibilities during a potential wildfire with the project being constructed. Once again, the road directly north of the development is in question and the following quote is 19 alarming considering how prevalent wildfires have become in the recent past. INVA "If the hypothetical "worst -case" condition involving 375 homes evacuating and all drivers electing to escape to the north, via existing two-lane Bouquet Canyon Road to the north of the project, the peak hour V/C would increase to 1.06, indicating more than the capacity of the northbound lane. This represents severely congested conditions with difficult and highly constrained traffic flow and would represent a serious constraint to evacuating motorists." As a concerned resident, who lives directly north of the development and on the street in question, what mitigation measures will be taken to ensure that a "severely congested condition" will not occur in the event of a "worst -case" condition? The following quote is subjective and provides no real plan of evacuation other than "it is unlikely." "The two hypothetical worst -case conditions noted above where project residents evacuating the site could encounter and complicate congested peak hour roadway conditions are unlikely to occur, since it is unlikely that Ilu all of the escaping motorists would select the same routes after exiting the project site. It is more likely that motorists would select the route and direction that they believe would take them most quickly away from whatever direction a wildfire might be approaching." The hypothetical of this "worst -case condition" could easily become a reality with one road closure on Bouquet Canyon Rd, south of the development. Furthermore, to dismiss this scenario as not needing any mitigation measures is subjective and irresponsible. This is the direct quote: "Mitigation measures would not be required. Impact 3.15-b: The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not create conditions that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire." The last topic of concern regarding Transportation are the Cumulative impacts mentioned on pages 4.0-19 through 4.0-23. There are 66 ongoing/proposed projects in the Santa Clarita surrounding area that are going to have significant traffic impacts to city and county roadways. The projects directly north of the development in question, (#61: Overland 1 and #62: Overland 2) appear to be of concern and mitigation measures have been proposed to 20 address this. Additionally, projects #41 and #46 have direct impacts to future traffic in the area. With this said, will the City of Santa Clarita be proactive in converting the stretch of Copper Hill Rd between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd into a four -lane secondary highway? What does the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element call for and will it be strictly adhered to now or in the future, considering there are multiple developments on the horizon? "', I.. On page 5.0-3 the EIR states: "Transportation and Traffic The fully developed and occupied residential community would generate approximately 3,092 vehicle trips a day, including 215 in the morning peak hour and 290 in the late afternoon peak hour. This traffic would result in significant congestion impacts at two intersections in the existing conditions scenario, and significant congestion impacts at nine intersections in the 2028 scenario. A variety of intersection improvements such as new traffic signals, traffic signal synchronization, and increased capacity for through and turning movements would be required to improve levels of service to meet the City's performance standards." Given both the cumulative and the direct impacts mentioned above, what mitigation measures will be taken to meet the City's performance standards? A Sensitive Receptor is defined as follows: "3.2.1.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 1 IIIINK Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The following types of people are most likely to be adversely affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day-care facilities, elder -care facilities, elementary schools, and parks." The neighborhoods around the proposed project contain multiple sensitive receptors and according to the City's General Plan the following goals and policies have been created to protect said individuals. "Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land use from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways 22 and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities; dry cleaners using perch loroethylene -1 and large gas stations, as recommended by CARB." These guidelines have been established to protect sensitive receptors now and in the future. In addition to these guidelines CEQA guidelines have been developed in order to identify thresholds that determine the significance of the environmental effects of a project. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" I understand that mitigation measures MM 3.2-a and MM 3.2-b are being recommended to reduce emissions caused by the construction of the development. What is the City of Santa Clarita's stance on these measures, knowing that prior to these measures being potentially implemented, the data supports that sensitive receptors will be at risk of exposure to particles and potential pollutants? Will there be a plan in place to have the air quality surrounding the project tested to ensure mitigation measures are, in fact, working and being reported regularly? Will the surrounding public be notified of the results of such a test? Table 3.10-2 illustrates Noise Measures. However, the data used was collected in March - April 2019 during non - peak traffic hours. The time of day when data was collected was 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. If the data were collected 23 during normal commute hours (6:00 - 9:00 a.m. or 3:00 -6:00 p.m., M - F) the noise results would be more accurate and most likely prove higher levels of noise. Regardless of this non -accurate sample, the results still show high levels of noise. The threshold of 70 CNEL was exceeded 69 times on Bouquet Canyon Rd between Plum Canyon and Northeast of David way. According to Table 3.10-4, the residential land use categories show unacceptable community noise conditions when CNEL reaches 70 or higher. According to The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) Noise Ordinance provides exterior noise standards within the City. Standard 11.44.040 Noise Limits states: "A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels ... sound levels dB of 65 (day) and 55 (night) in any residential areas." As stated above, the sound levels recorded are already above the standards set forth by the SCMC without the addition of 3,092 vehicle trips/day (215 in the AM and 290 in the PM) according to the flawed traffic study cited above. Furthermore, the EIR cites goals and policies from The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element that are applicable to the project. • Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. o Objective N 1.1: Protect the health and safety of the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels. IinK Policy N 1.1.1: Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines [see Table 3.10-4], which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise." As mentioned above the noise levels are already above the CNEL threshold as stated in the Table 3.10-4. What mitigation measures will the City take to correct these conditions? • Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. o Objective N 2.1: Prevent and mitigate adverse effects of noise generated from traffic on arterial streets and highways through implementing noise reduction standards and programs. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise -sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate." What sound barriers are going to be constructed to prevent the increase in traffic noise of the proposed 2- lane road that wraps around the west and south perimeters of my property? How will these barriers affect egress and ingress? Will these barriers add to the danger of the blind, "sharp" curve proposed? The City certainly cannot expect the property owner to take on the financial responsibility and burden of constructing sound barriers? Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate." What sort of "encouragement" will the City recommend in constructing the appropriate noise absorbing barriers around my property? Again, is the City expecting the property owner to take on this responsibility? 4. WSCELLANEOUS CONCERNS The westerly tip of my property contains a fully functional well. In addition to this, I have both a city water supply source and a natural gas source that I am extremely concerned about. What sort of mitigation measures are going to be implemented to ensure that I do not have interruptions in service for any utilities? What guarantee will be given that the road construction will not damage the vitality of my well and/or other utilities? 5. CONCLUSION Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft EIR. However, I do trust my legitimate concerns as a homeowner, resident, and parent will be taken into serious consideration well before this project is approved, finalized and construction begins. As mentioned earlier, I am most concerned about the safety of my family - my son in particular - who will be getting his driver's license in the near future. Bouquet Canyon Rd is the only way to exit and enter my property. I currently have three access points on the southern border to access this road, two of which are extremely close to the western tip of my property. I want to make sure that the people I love and care about can access and exit our home and property safely. Additionally, my son who I mentioned above, has cystic fibrosis, a life -threatening lung disease, which classifies him in the "sensitive receptor" group defined in this report. So, you can see why I am extremely concerned about the air quality, too, that will be compromised during the construction and future development of the project directly across the street from my home. Sincerely, Jason Davenport 28601 Bouquet Canyon Rd 28 29 MOZ91 SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY Responses to Comment Letter Number 2 by Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy dated June 1, 2020 Comment 1: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (Conservancy) offers the following comments on the proposed project to build 375 residential units and realign Bouquet Canyon Road by: 1. Eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline and moving them onsite to create flat terrain. 2. Permanently losing 10 acres of non -wetland Waters of the United States 3. Eliminating 26 oak trees with four different oak species 4. Permanently impacting 84 acres-- including beyond the property boundary 5. Providing no natural open space and no connectivity to natural open space The DEIR conclusions that these impacts are mitigated below a level of significance is troubling. The DEIR provides no substantive on the ground mitigation for these natural resources because there will be no ungraded area with native soil conditions remaining onsite to implement biological mitigation that provides commensurate resources for natural communities. Offsite streambed mitigation is deferred mitigation. The project completely butchers all the natural land forms and biological resources on the site. The project as proposed cannot avoid or mitigate significant biological impacts which requires a statement of overriding considerations. Response 1: This comment expresses disagreement with the Draft EIR findings and conclusions regarding the significance of impacts related to grading of the significant ridgeline, removal of biological resources and loss of natural open space. This opinion is noted and this comment and all of the comments in this letter have been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. The first impact noted in this comment, involving grading of over 2 million cubic yards "from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline and moving them onsite to create flat terrain," is not accurate with respect to the proposed grading plan or the analysis of impacts involving alterations to the City -designated Significant Ridgeline presented in the Draft EIR. The proposed grading plan entails approximately 2.07 million cubic yards of earth work, across the entire 74.66 acres of the project development footprint. That footprint area incorporates all proposed grading, including manufactured slopes beyond (to the south of) the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road as well as other engineered facilities such as infiltration, detention and debris basins also located beyond (to the south of) the new section of Bouquet Canyon Road. The 74.66 acre project footprint also includes all required fuel modification areas that extend beyond the limits of the proposed residential planning areas and would require removal of existing flammable vegetation. The figure of 84 acres of project disturbance area identified in this comment is not supported with any source, whereas the 74.66 acre was calculated with a computerized measuring tool by the project civil engineer. 051 It is roughly estimated that no more than 1 /3 of the total grading would impact a portion of the on -site Significant Ridgeline and adjoining hillside flanks. A substantial portion of the ridgeline to be graded is necessary to construct the proposed realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, along the preferred alignment identified in the Circulation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan. In Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, the aesthetic impacts of this ridgeline alteration were analyzed, and it was determined that because this ridgeline is lower in elevation than several other nearby Significant Ridgelines, it is not considered as prominent as those other, higher ridgelines. Furthermore, the primary public viewing audience with views of this ridgeline feature are motorists and occasional pedestrians and bicyclists who travel along the adjacent segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Their viewing experience is momentary and changes constantly as the view proceeds along that street. It is different and less important than a viewing experience from a stationary viewing site where the public can remain to enjoy a scenic view for an extended period of time. The Draft EIR concluded that while the project would substantially modify this important landform, the aesthetic impact would be less than significant, due to the two factors just cited. There is no need, therefore, to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is required only for impacts determined to be both significant and unavoidable. This comment erroneously states the project would permanently eliminate 10 acres of non -wetland Waters of the U.S. The biological surveys and analysis prepared for the Draft EIR determined that the project would have a permanent impact to 0.19 acre of non -wetland Water of the U.S., at the upstream and downstream ends Bouquet Creek, within the project development footprint. As discussed on pages 3.3-21 to 3.3-22 of the Draft EIR, this impact would be sufficiently mitigated through issuance of regulatory permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. There is no need, therefore, to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the impact to non -wetland Waters of the U.S., which is required only for impacts determined to be both significant and unavoidable. This comment also suggests that offsite streambed mitigation is "deferred mitigation." Mitigation measure 3.3-3 requires the developer to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, to identify specific on and/or off -site measures to offset the loss of streambed resources due to project construction. As noted on p. 3.3-20, a majority of the impacted streambed vegetation is giant reed, a common invasive species with low and sometimes harmful biological value. Only small areas of native -dominated habitat would be permanently impacted, while the remaining impacts would affect mostly unvegetated river wash. Securing a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement to offset impacts to streambed resources is a common mitigation measure applied throughout California. Specific locations and components of enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of suitable streambed habitat, either on or off -site, cannot be determined until the terms of that Agreement are established. Since the project impacts to California streambed resources would be sufficiently mitigated through compliance with a Streambed Alteration Agreement ►aya enforced by CDFW, the impact would be less than significant. As such, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would not be required for this impact. As discussed on pages 3.3-26 to 3.3-28 of the Draft EIR, project impacts to oak (Quercus spp.) trees would be fully mitigated through compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, which requires replacement trees to be planted on -site, donation of trees to the City, or an equivalent monetary value to be paid to the City (City 2013). Additionally, no oak woodlands or sensitive oak communities were mapped on the project site. The majority of oaks observed on the project site were shrubs, including scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) and Tucker oak (Quercus john-tuckeri). Areas dominated by these species were mapped as scrub oak chaparral (MCV scrub oak chaparral; CaCode 37.407.02) and southern north slope chaparral (MCV Tucker oak chaparral; CaCode 37.418.04), respectively (see Figure 5 of the BTR). Neither of these communities are designated by CDFW as sensitive natural communities, and therefore impacts to these communities do not warrant mitigation pursuant to CDFW (CDFW 2019). Since the project's impacts to oak trees would be fully mitigated through compliance with the City's oak tree ordinance, the impact is considered to be less than significant. As such, there is no need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact. The fifth and last impact identified in the comment expresses a concern about the project's lack of preservation of natural open space or providing connectivity to such open spaces. There is no threshold of impact significance in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist that is based on criteria to preserve a certain amount of natural open space or connectivity to such open spaces. Such criteria are pertinent to consideration of the significance of impacts to habitat supporting sensitive plants and wildlife species, if the impact would seriously threaten such species. Although there are natural hillside open spaces to the south of the project site, there are neighborhoods of developed homes just beyond those spaces. Furthermore, the project site is not presently connected to large natural open spaces in any direction, as there are established residential neighborhoods to the west, north and south, and rural residential and institutional land uses to the north and east. Bouquet Canyon Road acts as a barrier to wildlife movement and Bouquet Creek flows into a fully channelized continuation of the creek, just north of the project site. As discussed on page 3.3-8 in the Draft EIR, the project site is not part of a regional wildlife movement corridor since it does not directly connect two or more large blocks of habitat that would otherwise be fragmented from one another. Further, the project would preserve existing natural open space including the western- and northern -facing hillsides along the Significant Ridgeline, in the northern part of the site, and adjacent lowlands along the southern side of existing Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and the proposed high flow flood control channel. Based on the project site's location and landscape character, there would not be a significant impact due to a loss of connectivity between significant natural open spaces that support important habitat. As such, there is no need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this less than significant impact. 2-3 Comment 2: The Conservancy hopes that the City concurs that this level of biological loss and land form modification on Bouquet Creek next to public youth facilities is not in the public interest in regard to retaining natural green space, retaining natural water courses and their recharge capability, and not facilitating growth that further exacerbates traffic congestion. The Conservancy hopes that the City does not make the decision to sacrifice the above level of biological resources just to facilitate the road realignment. If the City makes the decision to go with a road realignment, the Conservancy recommends patience and a much better natural lands outcome from the proposed development project. Unfortunately, the DEIR spells out the linkage between the 2 million cubic yards of grading and the road realignment because one of the project objectives is: Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. Response 2: This comment expresses opposition to the proposed scale of landform modifications and suggests an alternative design that would reduce the level of impact to natural lands, groundwater recharge and traffic congestion. This opposition and the opinions expressed therein are noted and have been provided to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Comment 3: The twisted logic of the DEIR is demonstrably illustrated by the below conclusion on Page 5.0-2 in the Alternatives section: "The proposed alterations to the significant ridgeline in the western part of the site, while extensive, would not be considered a significant impact, because this is not the most visually prominent ridgeline feature in this area and the visible changes would be limited to motorists along the adjacent segment of old Bouquet Canyon Road and nearby homes, as opposed to changing a scenic feature within a scenic vista that is enjoyed by a large mobile or stationary viewing audience located along a scenic travel corridor. The project would substantially change the visual character of the site through topographical alterations and removal of natural open space features that would be replaced by a new community of low -scale homes, with highly visible manufactured slopes, a variety of building masses, a different and more extensive landscape palette, and outdoor lighting fixtures that do not presently exist." In essence the DEIR above concludes that replacing a natural significant ridgeline with homes, manufactured slopes, non-native landscaping, and lighting is a one to one visual equivalency. Fortunately, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) includes one alternative that respects the landscape and its biological resources. For an EIR to be valid all of its alternatives must be feasible. Thereby, Alternative 3 is feasible for the City to approve and implement. The Conservancy supports Alternative 3: Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat. The DEIR concurs that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 follows the science 2-4 of conservation biology - all other development alternatives completely ignore it and maximize the demise of natural resources in the City. Alternative 3 meets every Project Objective in the Project Description except the one in italics above that requires enough grading to generate the dirt to realign the Bouquet Canyon Road with mass cut and fill grading. Response 3: This comment erroneously states that the Draft EIR presents a discussion that portrays a "visual equivalency" between the existing conditions and the as -built conditions. The quoted excerpt from the Draft EIR does not provide any such evaluation or determination. Rather, it explains there would be a significant change in the visual character of the site, but that the grading of the significant ridgeline would not be considered a significant visual impact because it is not the most prominent ridgeline feature in this area and is primarily visible to motorists along the adjacent segments of Bouquet Canyon Road and surrounding homes, neither of which constitute conditions for a scenic vista along a recognized scenic route. This comment also expresses support for Alternative 3, as presented in the Draft EIR. This opinion is noted and has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Comment 4: In all cases, in regard to the loss of riparian habitat in Bouquet Creek, the Conservancy concurs with the CDFW recommendation to require the creation of similar habitat (including full hydrologic and geomorphic function) at a ratio not less than 6:1. Response 4: This comment indicates concurrence with an unsubstantiated CDFW recommendation to provide mitigation for loss of riparian habitat at a ratio of not less than 6:1. CDFW submitted comments concerning this Draft EIR, in a letter dated June 10, 2020, and none of those comments recommend such a mitigation measure for loss of riparian habitat. Comment 5: Multiple questions raised in the Conservancy's Notice of Preparation comments were not addressed in the DEIR such as --the following question. The use of County correctional facility land to facilitate the proposed development appears to be a gift of public funds. What compensation will the County receive for the loss of its land to private uses and other public uses? How will a new major boulevard next to a youth correctional facility affect the youth? Response 5: This comment consists of questions that do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or any specific provisions of the Draft EIR; therefore, a response is not warranted. This comment, and the entire letter has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council, for their consideration. It is noted that the Draft EIR evaluated effects of roadway noise associated with the built project, including the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, and no significant 4W impacts were identified for any sensitive land uses nearby, including the youth correctional facility. Please refer to pages 3.10-16 to 3.10-17 of the Draft EIR. ►al STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY C o IYn iYn in 11etteir III t iYn Uwe it GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY RAMIREZ CANYON PARK 5750 RAMIREZ CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 PHONE (310) 589-3200 FAX (310) 589-3207 WWW.SMMC.CA.GOV June 1, 2020 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Bouquet Canyon Residental Development and Bouquet Canyon Road Realignment Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments scx No. 2018121009 Dear Mr. Nguyen: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (Conservancy) offers the following comments on the proposed project to build 375 residential units and realign Bouquet Canyon Road by: 1. Eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline and moving them onsite to create flat terrain. 2. Permanently losing 10 acres of non -wetland Waters of the United States. 3. Eliminating 26 oak tree with four different oak species. 4. Permanently impacting 84 acres --including beyond the property boundary 5. Providing no natural open space and no connectivity to natural open space. The HEIR conclusions that these impacts are mitigated below a level of significance is troubling. The HEIR provides no substantive on the ground mitigation for these natural resources because there will be no ungraded area with native soil conditions remaining onsite to implement biological mitigation that provides commensurate resources for natural communities. Offsite streambed mitigation is deferred mitigation. The project completely butchers all the natural land forms and biological resources on the site. The project as proposed cannot avoid or mitigate significant biological impacts which requires a statement of overriding considerations. The Conservancy hopes that the City concurs that this level of biological loss and land form modification on Bouquet Creek next to public youth facilities is not in the public interest in regard to retaining natural green space, retaining natural water courses and their recharge capability, and not facilitating growth that further exacerbates traffic congestion. The Conservancy hopes that the City does not make the decision to sacrifice the above level &A Hai Nguyen Bouquet Canyon Residential Project DEIR Comments June 1, 2020 Page 2 of biological resources just to facilitate the road realignment. If the City makes the decision to go with a road realignment, the Conservancy recommends patience and a much better natural lands outcome from the proposed development project. Unfortunately, the DEIR spells out the linkage between the 2 million cubic yards of grading and the road realignment because one of the project objectives is: Minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment. The twisted logic of the DEIR is demonstrably illustrated by the below conclusion on Page 5.0-2 in the Alternatives section: "The proposed alterations to the significant ridgeline in the western part of the site, while extensive, would not be considered a significant impact, because this is not the most visually prominent ridgeline feature in this area and the visible changes would be limited to motorists along the adjacent segment of old Bouquet Canyon Road and nearby homes, as opposed to changing a scenic feature within a scenic vista that is enjoyed by a large mobile or stationary viewing audience located along a scenic travel corridor. The project would substantially change the visual character of the site through topographical alterations and removal of natural open space features that would be replaced by a new community of low -scale homes, with highly visible manufactured slopes, a variety of building masses, a different and more extensive landscape palette, and outdoor lighting fixtures that do not presently exist." In essence the HEIR above concludes that replacing a natural significant ridgeline with homes, manufactured slopes, non-native landscaping, and lighting is a one to one visual equivalency. Fortunately, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (HEIR) includes one alternative that respects the landscape and its biological resources. For an EIR to be valid all of its alternatives must be feasible. Thereby, Alternative 3 is feasible for the City to approve and implement. The Conservancy supports Alternative 3: Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat. The HEIR concurs that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 3 follows the science of conservation biology - all other 2-8 Hai Nguyen Bouquet Canyon Residential Project DEIR Comments June 1, 2020 Page 3 development alternatives completely ignore it and maximize the demise of natural resources in the City. Alternative 3 meets every Project Objective in the Project 3 Description except the one in italics above that requires enough grading to generate the dirt to realign the Bouquet Canyon Road with mass cut and fill grading. In all cases, in regard to the loss of riparian habitat in Bouquet Creek, the Conservancy concurs with the CDFwrecommendation to require the creation of similar habitat (including full hydrologic and geomorphic function) at a ratio not less than 6:1. Multiple questions raised in the Conservancy's Notice of Preparation comments were not addressed in the DEIR—such as --the following question. The use of County correctional facility land to facilitate the proposed development appears to be a gift of public funds. What compensation will the County receive for the loss of its land to private uses and other public uses? How will anew major boulevard next to a youth correctional facility affect the youth? Please direct questions and future documents to Paul Edelman of our staff at the above letterhead address, at edelmanLsmmc.ca.�o�v, and 310-589-3200 ext. 128. Since ly, I "oz Chairper on 001 ROGER A HARING Responses to Comment Letter Number 3 by Roger A Haring dated June 1, 2020 Comment 1: This Comment Letter would like to address the Draff EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project, Chapter "5.0 Alternatives" and Chapter "3.0 Geology and Soils." After an overview of the entire Draft EIR entitled: The Bouquet Canyon Project from the City's website [https: //www.sontociarito. com/cityholl/departments/communitydevelopment/plannin g/environmental-impact-reports-under-review], it has come to the attention of the Bouquet Canyon Network (BCN) that the Alternatives proposed for this particular property site would have a much greater "net benefit" to the local community and environmental resources of this region of Santa Clarita Valley, then the project currently proposed! Under the EIR Chapter 5.0 Alternatives, the analysis performed by the CEQA Guidelines, suggests that the "No Project/ No Development Alternative" would have the least impact on the project site location. Of the various Alternatives examined for the project site, two categories were defined; as either. "considered and rejected" or "selected for evaluation." Those Alternatives that were "considered and rejected" include: 5.3.1 Fewer Homes, 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, and 5.3.3 Alternative Locations. The questions) presented below examines the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, which in reality, should be seriously considered and forthrightly questioned: Why would the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses for this particular property not be considered? Even if 5.3.2 is outside the objectives of the City's land use policies, it should be seriously vetted for this particular location because of the natural resource of water that is endowed at this site. What must be studied, and thoroughly understood by the city's planning commission is that the location of this proposed project can and will have impacts on water resources of the region. A city planning commission must utilize a variety of both scientific and analytical approaches to determine where development projects should be developed, and where it should not be developed. In this case "a new road, a new home track, and a new concrete channel" is being proposed on top of an important floodplain and aquifer directly connected to the EASTERN SUB -BASIN in the Santa Clarita Valley! Would developing this location with the proposed project cause alterations, diminishment and compression a significant aquifer that helps recharge a portion of the Upper Santa Clara River Water Valley? Yes, it will. Why is development of "roads, homes, and hardscapes" permitted to take place atop of a "groundwater recharge confluence"? Is it beneficial, in both the short-term and long-term, to consider that "our local water resources" as limited they may be, are as valuable to our "safety and health," as adding more and more "roads, homes and hardscapes" to our finite canyons and hills??? This concept of utilizing land appropriately for development, based on the natural resources available, must be taken very seriously, and added to the planning commission's decision protocol. All 3-1 properties with unique watershed characteristics, especially those endowed with particular water recharge capacities, must be conserved for future generations in order to conserve those natural resources for the well-being of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed has for centuries supported the Eastern Sub -Basin of the Santa Clarita Valley, and continues to serve as a "diverse biological reserve" to more than just a few endemic species of plants and animals that rely on these local water resources. Only a few of those species were mentioned in this particular DRAFT EIR. As described in the current DRAFT EIR, under Chapter 3.0 Geology and Soils (3.6. 1.3 Local Groundwater Conditions, pp. 200); the report acknowledges this site is located on the "periphery of the East Subbasin of the Upper Santa Clara River Groundwater Basin." The groundwater in this particular site is reported (according to the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998) to exist at depths of "40 feet or less below the ground surface." Furthermore, the CDMG Report goes onto indicate that "historical high groundwater depth of the site varies from approximately 40 to 10 feet below the surface." Hence, this particular property site has a history of a "high watertable," and would be likely to function as an "ephemeral recharge zone" now and into the future. By developing this site, permanently altering and compressing the landscape and aquifer, it will simply lead to less water captured and less water recharged to the East Subbasin. The present DRAFT EIR goes on to note that in the recent field investigations into the alluvial sediments, "groundwater levels are significantly lower than reported in the literature." Ironically, however, "two water levels were measured at depths of 45 and 50 feet below ground surface." So, what does this mean? In short there is a high probabilitX for this particular property to "capture and store" water. The Upper Santa Clara River Watershed, has many tributaries that feed and replenish its aquifers, but some of these particular tributaries are more capable of providing this ecological service of "capture and storage," then others. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed does and will continue to provide a significant "ecological service" for the Santa Clarita Valley basins. Additionally, this particular property site has both a unique topography and geology, with landscape and soil properties able to channel water below ground efficiently and support an unique microclimate. Even without the current "contractual release" of the upper Bouquet Canyon watershed stream flow (5 cfs per year), the decade's long -drought (2009-2018), and lower precipitation in region over the last few years, this particular alluvial floodplain is still showing a relatively high- water -holding capacity (40-50ft below the surface) as the DRAFT EIR indicates. Hence, it should be obvious to all planning stakeholders involved in the development projects of this nature, that there are regions of the Santa Clarita Valley which should be seriously protected for preserving water resources. This is one of those property sites. In conclusion, there are many ways in which property owners, planning commissioners, and public agencies can creatively and equitably develop property in the Santa Clarita Valley. What must be taken to task here at this moment, and at this particular property site for development is knowing what is the best safest and healthiest of 3-2 outcome of developing this property in a responsible and sustainable manner. It is something, we believe, we can all agree upon: Water is the best resource to conserve. Response 1: Rationale for Proposed Design of High Flow Concrete -Lined Channel The initial approach to this project was to provide a hardened embankment protection along both sides of Bouquet Wash and leave the area between as a natural soft bottom stream. It was assumed that the embankment protection would be placed at the County floodway limits. The hydraulic calculations for this concept showed that, using a standard County roughness coefficient (n=0.060 to n=0.085) which assumes vegetation will be allowed to grow uninhibited in the soft bottom, the water surface in the channel would be significantly higher (up to 1 1') than existing Bouquet Canyon Road. Adjustments were then made to widen the bottom to account for raise in water surface. Even by eliminating all development on the north side of the channel and expanding the soft bottom 300' to the south, the water surface would still be up to 3' higher than Bouquet Canyon Road. These results indicated that an exclusively soft bottom channel would not be an acceptable alternative for this project. Another alternative was to consider using a soft bottom channel with no vegetation allowed in the entire invert similar to the existing downstream channel. This would reduce the roughness coefficient to 0.035. This would require a top width of at least 240' or more to convey the flow. Point stabilizers and or drop structures would be needed to prevent erosion in the bottom due to the steepness of the channel. This would eliminate the existing jurisdictional area and not allow for revegetation in order to maintain the n value. The size of the footprint of this alternative, the elimination of jurisdictional vegetation and the County's reluctance to rely on the ability of a channel to be cleared on a regular basis to maintain its ability to safely transmit flood flows led the project's civil engineer to conclude that this would not be an acceptable alternative. The next alternative evaluated was a hard bottom channel for flood control with a natural low flow channel running parallel. This allows for a natural area within the existing jurisdictional flow line areas and provides the opportunity for ground water recharge during these higher frequency lower intensity storm events. The hydraulics for this system showed that existing Bouquet Canyon Road was no longer lower than the water surface in the channel and this was decided to be the preferred alternative. Within the project footprint, including the offsite improvements required for the construction on new Bouquet Canyon Road, there is currently a total of 8.2 acres within the 100 year FEMA Zone A floodplain. The FEMA floodplain has been established using flow rates based on a hydrologic analysis which relies on actual stream gage data. The 100 year flood is defined as a flood that has 1/100 or 1% chance of occurring within any given year. Of these 8.2 acres, approximately 2.6 acres would remain as either landscaped slopes or revegetated jurisdictional area. The remaining area would be utilized for the hard bottom channel. The revegetated jurisdictional areas would be designed with a flat longitudinal slope to provide a greater opportunity for off season 3-3 dry weather and lower intensity rainy season flows to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater table. In addition to the groundwater recharge opportunities within the low flow channel, this project has also proposed two infiltration basins. These basins are adjacent to the wash and were proposed to address LID requirements. These basins will take the runoff from our newly created impervious areas and infiltrate both non -storm (irrigation water, etc.) as well as low intensity storms (typically the first 1/4" of rainfall which includes 85% of the rainfall events in our region). This will provide additional groundwater recharge opportunities, as discussed in the Supplemental Groundwater Recharge Analysis, below. Overall, this project covers approximately 1,900 linear feet of Bouquet Creek. This represents 3.6% of the approximately 52,000 linear foot total length of the creek from Bouquet reservoir to the existing flood control channel. As such, in addition to the recharge provided by the project, the existing natural streambed upstream to the reservoir will continue to act to recharge the groundwater as well. There will also be areas within the project that are not being developed and will remain in their current condition. The oak grove area near the downstream boundary of the project in particular will remain and continue to provide groundwater recharge of runoff from the adjacent hillside. The proposed drainage concept has been shown on the tentative map and the hydrology / LID map and study. The hydrology and LID was reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, prior to publication of the Draft EIR. Supplemental Analysis of Groundwater Recharge A supplemental analysis of the project's effects on groundwater recharge within the project site was conducted, to help determine whether the proposed concrete -lined high flow channel would have a significant adverse impact on the volume of annual groundwater recharge, compared to existing conditions. This analysis was prepared by Thomas Harder & Co., a hydrogeological firm that specializes in groundwater consulting, with extensive experience evaluating projects in the Santa Clarita Valley.' A copy of the Harder & Co. report is included in the Final EIR, within the Errata section. Approach to Analysis The methodology used to quantify pre- and post -Project recharge involves quantifying recharge in Bouquet Creek and recharge in the retention basins. The former relies on the streamflow data whereas the latter relies on the precipitation data (to quantify runoff into the retention basins) along with an estimate of infiltration rate at the two subarea basins most likely to influence the calculations (i.e. 100A and 300A as noted on the "LID Exhibit" within the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which is provided as 'Thomas Harder & Co., Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Recharge for Multifamily Residential Development Project (Tentative Tract 82126), Bouquet Canyon, Santa Clarita, California. July 28, 2020. 3-4 Appendix G of the Draft EIR). Recharge associated with high intensity rainfall events that could result in flow from the retention basins into Bouquet Creek are not accounted for in our methodology, primarily due to the uncertainty associated with precisely where such an exchange would occur and expected low frequency of such events. Methodology to Estimate Bouquet Creek Recharge Infiltration within Bouquet Creek was estimated based on historical streamflow records, estimated stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. Daily infiltration is the product of stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. The stream width was based on the stream profile from SIKAND at three stages, 0, 100, and 200 cfs (see Figure 4 in Harder & Co. report). The flows between each stage were assumed to be proportional to the area. Using these proportions, the daily stream profile (including width) was calculated based the daily streamflow data. The width of the stream when flows were greater than 200 cfs were assumed to be equal to the maximum width of the stream profile. The length of the Bouquet Creek within the Project area is approximately 2,000 ft. The infiltration rate was based on three infiltration tests conducted near Bouquet Creek as reported in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. As shown in Figure 2 of the Harder & Co. report, two of the tests were conducted at drainage subarea basin 100A whereas the third was conducted at drainage subarea basin 300A. The average of the adjusted infiltration rates (as presented in the original report) was 8.0 ft/day. Recharge for flows less than 200 cfs were assumed to be the same for pre -Project and Project conditions. Infiltration for flows greater than 200 cfs was limited to that which is calculated for the primary, low flow channel. As noted above, based on the available data daily streamflow exceeded 200 cfs 1 1 times. Methodology to Estimate Captured Runoff Captured runoff was estimated based on historical precipitation data, runoff volumes from SIKAND, the size of the stormwater retention basin, and the estimated infiltration rate within subareas 100A 300A, and 400A retention basins. Precipitation runoff was calculated by SIKAND for Subareas 100A, 300A, and 400A as presented in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. Runoff within Subarea 100A will be captured in a 0.5-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 1.75 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 300A will be captured in a 0.09-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.38 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 400A will be captured in a 0.03-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.07 acre-ft. The basins will be unlined and located on the canyon floor alluvium. Based on the available infiltration data noted above, the basins are assumed to have an infiltration rate of 8.0 ft/day, which translates to a combined recharge capacity for both basins of 5.0 acre-ft/day when full. 3-5 Based on a peak flow hydrologic analysis by SIKAND, a 0.85-inch precipitation event within Subareas 100A, 300A, and 300A would generate 0.86, 0.38, and 0.07 acre-ft of water under Project conditions, respectively. Estimated runoff was based on the proportion of measured daily rainfall to the 0.85-inch baseline. Due to the high recharge rates of the basins, the total capture volume was limited to the total recharge capacity. Results of Pre -Project and Project Recharge Conditions Analysis Based on the analyses described above, the estimated annual recharge within the project area from Bouquet Creek and captured runoff is summarized in the following table: Bouquet Creek Recharge 114 acre-ft/yr 109 acre-ft/yr Subbareas 100A and 300A Captured 0 acre-ft/yr 14 acre-ft/yr Runoff Total I 1 14 acre-ft/yr 1123 acre-ft/yr Based on the results of this analysis, the project would result in an increase in annual groundwater recharge within the project site; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater recharge associated with proposed site improvements, including the proposed concrete channel to carry high storm flows. 3-6 Hai Nguyen C o IYn IIYn e in t 11 etteir Ntxirnbeir From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:27 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Attachments: BCN COMMENT LETTER ON DRAFT EIR Bouquet Canyon Project 2020.pdf Y`II If Y WAIflITIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good afternoon Hai Nguyen, Please find the ATTACHMENT to this email (above) for public comment on the Draft EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project. Please include it in the project record. Please CONFIRM receipt of this email and ATTACHMENT. Thank you, R.A. Haring Bouquet Canyon Network On June 2, 2020 10:50 AM Hai Nguyen <hnguyen@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Good morning, Yes, we are still accepting comment letters on the Draft EIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project. Please feel free to email any letters to me directly and I will include it in the project record. Have a great day, Hai Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-365 Email: hnguyen -Santa-clarita.com IA Web: http://www.sar:ta-olaritavoom ICIL A.RS F From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:26 AM To: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Cc: Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Y`II If Y WNf"NIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good morning! Mr. Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner- Bouquet Canyon Draft EIR Manager Today, June 2, 2020 at 6pm the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission is scheduled to meet and discuss the DRAFT EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project (State Clearinghouse Number: 2018121009) I would like to confirm that you are still receiving public review and comments on this DRAFT EIR (April 6 to June 5, 2020), and would like ensure that proper submission protocol is followed. Please confirm receipt of this email, and I will follow-up with a Comment Letter via email. Thank you, 3-8 Roger A. Haring 3-9 June 1, 2020 Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Email: HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com Phone: (661) 255-4365 COMMENT LETTER TO THE SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner of the City of Santa Clarita This Comment Letter is for the Draft EIR: The Bouquet Canyon Project This Comment Letter is submitted within the 60-day review period (April 6, 2020 to June 5, 2020). This Comment Letter would like to address the Draft EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project, Chapter "5.0 Alternatives" and Chapter "3.0 Geology and Soils." After an overview of the entire Draft EIR entitled: The Bouquet Canyon Project, from the City's website[https://www.santaclarita.com/cityhall/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/environ mental -impact -reports -under -review], it has come to the attention of the Bouquet Canyon Network (BCN) that the Alternatives proposed for this particular property site would have a much greater "net benefit" to the local community and environmental resources of this region of Santa Clarita Valley, then the project currently proposed! Under the EIR Chapter 5.0 Alternatives, the analysis performed by the CEQA Guidelines, suggests that the "No Project/No Development Alternative" would have the least impact on the project site location. Of the various Alternatives examined for the project site, two categories were defined; as either: "considered and rejected" or "selected for evaluation." Those Alternatives that were "considered and rejected" include: 5.3.1 Fewer Homes, 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, and 5.3.3 Alternative Locations. The question(s) presented below examines the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, which in reality, should be seriously considered and forthrightly questioned: Why would the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses for this particular property not be considered? Even if 5.3.2 is outside the objectives of the City's land use policies, it should be seriously vetted for this particular location because of the natural resource of water that is endowed at this site. What must be studied, and thoroughly understood by the city's planning commission is that the location of this proposed project can and will have impacts on water resources of the region. A city planning commission must utilize a variety of both scientific and analytical approaches to determine where development projects should be developed, and where it should not be developed. In this case "a new road, a new home track, and a new concrete channel" is being proposed on top of an important floodplain and aquifer directly connected to the EASTERN SUB -BASIN in the Santa Clarita Valley! Would developing this location with the proposed project cause alterations, diminishment, and compression a significant aquifer that helps recharge a portion of the Upper Santa Clara River Water Valley? Yes, it will. 11 3-10 Why is development of "roads, homes, and hardscapes" permitted to take place atop of a "groundwater recharge confluence"? Is it beneficial, in both the short-term and long-term, to consider that "our local water resources" as limited they may be, are as valuable to our "safety and health," as adding more and more "roads, homes and hardscapes" to our finite canyons and hills??? This concept of utilizing land appropriately for development, based on the natural resources available, must be taken very seriously, and added to the planning commission's decision protocol. All properties with unique watershed characteristics, especially those endowed with particular water recharge capacities, must be conserved for future generations in order to conserve those natural resources for the well-being of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed has for centuries supported the Eastern Sub -Basin of the Santa Clarita Valley, and continues to serve as a "diverse biological reserve" to more than just a few endemic species of plants and animals that rely on these local water resources. Only a few of those species were mentioned in this particular DRAFT EIR. As described in the current DRAFT EIR, under Chapter 3.0 Geology and Soils (3.6.1.3 Local Groundwater Conditions, pp. 200); the report acknowledges this site is located on the "periphery of the East Subbasin of the Upper Santa Clara River Groundwater Basin." The groundwater in this particular site is reported (according to the California Division of Mines and Geology (CD MG), 1998) to exist at depths of "40 feet or less below the ground surface." Furthermore, the CDMG Report goes onto indicate that "historical high groundwater depth of the site varies from approximately 40 to 10 feet below the surface." Hence, this particular property site has a history of a "high water - table," and would be likely to function as an "ephemeral recharge zone" now and into the future. By developing this site, permanently altering and compressing the landscape and aquifer, it will simply lead to less water captured and less water recharged to the East Subbasin. The present DRAFT EIR goes on to note that in the recent field investigations into the alluvial sediments, "groundwater levels are significantly lower than reported in the literature." Ironically; however, "two water levels were measured at depths of 45 and 50 feet below ground surface." So, what does this mean? In short, there is a high probability for this particular property to "capture and store" water. The Upper Santa Clara River Watershed, has many tributaries that feed and replenish its aquifers, but some of these particular tributaries are more capable of providing this ecological service of "capture and storage," then others. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed does and will continue to provide a significant "ecological service" for the Santa Clarita Valley basins. Additionally, this particular property site has both a unique topography and geology, with landscape and soil properties able to channel water below ground efficiently and support an unique microclimate. Even without the current "contractual release" of the upper Bouquet Canyon watershed stream flow (5 cfs per year), the decade's long -drought (2009- 2018), and lower precipitation in region over the last few years, this particular alluvial floodplain is still showing a relatively high -water -holding capacity (40-50ft below the surface) as the DRAFT EIR indicates. Hence, it should be obvious to all planning stakeholders involved in the development projects of this nature, that there are regions of the Santa Clarita Valley which should be seriously protected for preserving water resources. This is one of those property sites. In conclusion, there are many ways in which property owners, planning commissioners, and public agencies can creatively and equitably develop property in the Santa Clarita Valley. What must be taken to task here at this moment, and at this particular property site for development, is knowing what is the best, safest, and healthiest of outcome of developing this property in a responsible and sustainable manner. It is something, we believe, we can all agree upon: Water is the best resource to conserve. 3-11 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 7 Responses to Comment Letter Number 4 by the California Department of Transportation District 7 dated June 1, 2020 Comment 1: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Development of 375 for -sale homes is proposed in five distinct neighborhoods, along with extensive site improvements including internal streets and driveways, storm drainage, water, and sewer facilities, electrical and natural gas facilities, private recreation areas, public parkland and trails, and a reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain to provide flood control within the project and maintain regular stream flows already occurring. This project also includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. This is intended to facilitate local and regional travel through a more direct route, compared to the existing long curve that forms the northern and western borders of the site. The total development footprint would cover approximately 67.57 acres. Land clearance, grading, and the construction of all site improvements and homes is tentatively estimated to occur over a period of five years, with homes to be sold in phases in response to market demand. For purposes of the analyses conducted for this EIR, it is presumed that all homes will be sold and occupied, and all elements of the project completed and functional by approximately 2025. Response 1: This comment is a summary of the Project Description as provided in the Draft EIR. As such, no response is required. Comment 2: Caltrans has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and does not expect the proposed project to result in a direct adverse impact to state facilities. Response 2: This comment states that the proposed project is not expected to result in a direct adverse impact to state highway facilities. This comment is noted. Comment 3: Greenhouse gas reduction by way of reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is critical. The essential component of walkable communities is mixed -use zoning. Residential and appropriate commercial uses should be intertwined to increase accessibility and allow residents to utilize active transportation modes. Caltrans encourages the Lead Agency to consider any reduction in vehicle speeds to benefit pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as there is a direct link between impact speeds and the likelihood of fatality or serious injury. These methods include, but are not limited to, the construction of physically separated facilities such as wide sidewalks, raised medians, refuge islands, and off -road paths and trails, or a reduction in crossing 4-1 distances through roadway narrowing. These suggestions can reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to vehicles ensuring safety by lessening the time that the user is in the likely path of a motor vehicle. Signal timing can be adjusted to include Leading Pedestrian Intervals, giving pedestrians a seven second head start. Pedestrian and bicyclist warning signage, flashing beacons, high -visibility continental crosswalks, scramble crossings, flashing yellow turn signals, high -visibility green bike lanes, other signage and buffer striping can be used to indicate to motorists that they should expect to see and yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. Any development should keep livability in mind by providing shade trees, native landscaping, bioswales, street furniture, bicycle parking, bus shelters and trash cans. Bus bulb -outs can reduce conflict between bicycles and buses on busy roads. Bus only lanes are encouraged to reduce travel times and make public transit more appealing to discretionary users. Any gated communities should provide pedestrian paths and doors to ensure access to transit shopping centers, schools and main roads. Whenever possible, a grid pattern with short blocks is recommended to promote walking. Permeable paving materials could also be incorporated whenever possible. If significant earth -moving activities will take place during construction Caltrans recommends vehicles are covered when hauling dirt/sediment. Please be cautious of lost sediment spilling onto roads and state facilities during this process as this can adversely impact state facilitates. As a reminder, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend large size truck trips be limited to off- peak commute periods. Response 3: This comment consists of a variety of recommendations concerning various aspects of the project's construction and design that are generic in nature. It does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or any specific aspect of the project design; therefore, no response is required. These recommendations have been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. The reminder that a Caltrans transportation permit is required for the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways is noted. 4-2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 — Office of Regional Planning 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-9140 FAX (213) 897-1337 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov June 1, 2020 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita Dear Hai Nguyen: p Making Conservation a California Way of Life. RE: Bouquet Canyon Project — Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) GTS # 07-LA-2018-03226 SCH# 2018121009 Vic. LA / 14 / 29.681 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Development of 375 for -sale homes is proposed in five distinct neighborhoods, along with extensive site improvements including internal streets and driveways, storm drainage, water, and sewer facilities, electrical and natural gas facilities, private recreation areas, public parkland and trails, and a reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain to provide flood control within the project and maintain regular stream flows already occurring. This project also includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. This isu intended to facilitate local and regional travel through a more direct route, compared to the existing long curve that forms the northern and western borders of the site. The total development footprint would cover approximately 67.57 acres. Land clearance, grading, and the construction of all site improvements and homes is tentatively estimated to occur over a period of five years, with homes to be sold in phases in response to market demand. For purposes of the analyses conducted for this EIR, it is presumed that all homes will be sold and occupied, and all elements of the project completed and functional by approximately 2025. Caltrans has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and does not expect the proposed project to result in a direct adverse impact to state facilities. Additional information included for your consideration: Greenhouse gas reduction by way of reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is critical. The essential component of walkable communities is mixed -use zoning. Residential and appropriate commercial uses should be intertwined to increase accessibility and allow residents to utilize active transportation modes. Caltrans encourages the Lead Agency to consider any reduction in vehicle speeds to benefit pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as there is a direct link between impact speeds and the likelihood of fatality or serious injury. These methods include, but are not limited to, the construction of physically separated facilities such as wide sidewalks, raised medians, refuge islands, and off -road paths and trails, or a reduction in "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" IV 4-3 Hai Nguyen June 1, 2020 Page 2 of 2 crossing distances through roadway narrowing. These suggestions can reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to vehicles ensuring safety by lessening the time that the user is in the likely path of a motor vehicle. Signal timing can be adjusted to include Leading Pedestrian Intervals, giving pedestrians a seven second head start. Pedestrian and bicyclist warning signage, flashing beacons, high -visibility continental crosswalks, scramble crossings, flashing yellow turn signals, high -visibility green bike lanes, other signage and buffer striping can be used to indicate to motorists that they should expect to see and yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. Any development should keep livability in mind by providing shade trees, native landscaping, bioswales, street furniture, bicycle parking, bus shelters and trash cans. Bus bulb -outs can reduce conflict between bicycles and buses on busy roads. Bus only lanes are encouraged to reduce travel times and make public transit more appealing to discretionary users. Any gated communities should provide pedestrian paths and doors to ensure access to transit, shopping centers, schools and main roads. Whenever possible, a grid pattern with short blocks is recommended to promote walking. Permeable paving materials could also be incorporated whenever possible. If significant earth -moving activities will take place during construction Caltrans recommends vehicles are covered when hauling dirt/sediment. Please be cautious of lost sediment spilling onto roads and state facilities during this process as this can adversely impact state facilitates. As a reminder, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact project coordinator Reece Allen, at reece.allen@dot.ca.gov and refer to GTS# 07-LA-2018-03226 SucerC,,r :u r IYA 61VIONSON IG/CEA Branch, Chief c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse 3 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 4-4 THOMAs HART Responses to Comment Letter Number 5 by Thomas Hart dated May 24, 2020 Comment 1: With regards to the environmental impact report I'm concerned that there is no mention of California's Desert Native Plants Act. There are Yucca nearby the site in question. Yucca are protected by CDNPA. See FAC, Division 23, Chapter 3, section (a); number 80073. See here: http: //leginfo.legisiature.ca.gov/faces/codes_dispiayText.xhtm/?/awCode=FAC&divisio n=23. &title =&part=&chap ter=3. &article= Response 1: As discussed in Section 3.3 Biological Resources, pages 3.3-3 to 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR, biological surveys conducted at the project site identified 20 distinct vegetation communities, none of which contained any yucca plants, shrubs or trees (species Agavoideae). Focused site surveys for rare plants did not identify this species on site and yucca was not identified among rare plants known to occur in the vicinity of the project, or having a potential to occur on site, in the research of biological resources databases conducted as part of the biological resources technical report. Comment 2: Beyond this, I'm disturbed by the cavalier nature with which the oaks within the area are to be treated. Our oaks are part of the valley's heritage, and like all of Bouquet Canyon, represents resources that, once destroyed, will likely never be recovered. Response 2: This comment is a statement of opinion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is required. This letter has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council, for their consideration. Comment 3: Finally, I think the planned ridge grading, given that it is a prominent ridge, would be a significant environmental loss. These ridges have aesthetic beauty, even when they are not the most prominent in a region. If all of Santa Clarita was left with one ridge, it would be a significant loss. While the environmental impact may seem insignificant the city and developer should take into consideration what would occur should all other developers take the some approach. Response 3: This comment is a statement of opinion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is required. This letter has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council, for their consideration. Comment 4: In general, I think the developer should pursue, and the city should encourage the developer to pursue, an alternative which retains to the greatest extent the current landscape, plant life, and the like - the environmental character of the area. For those who live nearby, and grew up hiking the ridges, it is not enough to 5-1 relocate plants to somewhere else or to keep the most prominent one. Aesthetics and environmental impacts matter close-up, not just from a distance. I understand that the land is privately owned and that non -development is not an option from the perspective of the developer. It should be done in a way, nevertheless, that retains the environmental character of the area. Response 4: This comment is a statement of opinion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is required. This letter has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council, for their consideration. 5-2 Hai Nguyen C o IYn IIYn e in t 11 etteir Ntxirnbeir From: Thomas Hart <thomasemeryhart@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:11 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Comments on Draft EIR for Bouquet Canyon, State Clearinghouse No. 2018121009 CJIYWAIRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, With regards to the environmental impact report, I'm concerned that there is no mention of California's Desert Native Plants Act. There are Yucca nearby the site in question. Yucca are protected by CDN PA. See FAC, Division 23, Chapter 3, section (a); number 80073. See I here: xt.xhtml?IawCode=FAC&division=23.&tititL&part=&chapte r=3.&article= 11 Beyond this, I'm disturbed by the cavalier nature with which the oaks within the area are to be treated. Our oaks are part of the valley's heritage, and like all of Bouquet Canyon, represents resources that, once destroyed, will likely never be recovered. Finally, I think the planned ridge grading, given that it is a prominent ridge, would be a significant environmental loss. These ridges have aesthetic beauty, even when they are not the most prominent in a region. If all of Santa Clarita was left with one ridge, it would be a significant loss. While the environmental impact may seem insignificant, the city and developer should take into consideration what would occur should all other developers take the same approach. In general, I think the developer should pursue, and the city should encourage the developer to pursue, an alternative which retains to the greatest extent the current landscape, plant life, and the like - the environmental character of the area. For those who live nearby, and grew up hiking the ridges, it is not enough to relocate plants to somewhere else or to keep the most prominent one. Aesthetics and environmental impacts matter close-up, not just from a distance. I understand that the land is privately owned and that non -development is not an option from the perspective of the developer. It should be done in a way, nevertheless, that retains the environmental character of the area. Sincerely, Thomas Hart 661-478-4913 thomasemeryhart@gmaii.com 28276 Timothy Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 5-3 JIM CROWLEY Responses to Comment Letter Number 6 by Jim Crowley dated June 4, 2020 Comment 1: As I understand it the next step will be to present the information and public input proposal to the Santa Clarita City Council for review. May I start with a basic question related to the process. Do the council members and Planning Commission have access to the comments and letters such as this to read before city council meeting? And are they required to read them? And most importantly, will the Planning Commission or City Council respond to the individual public concerns? Are they required to respond? Your letter regarding the meeting of June 2 seems to answer my questions as it basically squashes all written public input with the statement "Comments will be made part of the meeting record, but not read into the record." Does anyone read them? Response 1: This letter has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Since the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or any aspect of the proposed project design, no response is required. Comment 2: This project brings a lot of thoughts to mind for planning considerations for project 18-089. 1 find it difficult to address them all so I will try to highlight a few thoughts and examples. As a resident of the area in question for 49 years I have watched the area expand, resulting in increased needs of the community and resultant environmental impacts. As we go ahead, we need to be sensitive to creating future negative impacts on thousands of people. This project violates many of the EIR concerns as it addresses those elements. Many times, it mentions how it would not meet a standard. While it would not present a problem, it presented a condition with less than significant impact, or similar wording. Adding all the exceptions and waivers presents a development not meeting the local community standards as required. In addition, if it did not meet a standard or regulation, an exception was being requested in the form of a waiver or exception to the standard. In one case the offer was to pay a fee to the city where they did not or could not meet city guidelines. In the big city picture, it moves the process ahead. Where is City's integrity? It is sad that a development can relegate regulations and standards to the trash. Why did we ever set standards or regulations? The ridge line ordinance comes to mind. I was particularly offended by the proposal's concern for maintaining the views for "travelers." If the project violates the ordinance to not change the ridge line, then it fails. End of discussion. What about the views of the residents across and above the development? Residents on Contessa Ave (zip 91350) come to mind. They will now be looking down on rooftops and congestion in lieu of ridgelines or wildlife.... and see polluting bright lights in their bedrooms at night. Also, the removal of local Oak trees was passed over like it was no big deal. It is a big deal. .:5i Response 2: This comment expresses several opinions of disagreement with the determinations of impact significance in the Draft EIR, particularly where the project, as proposed, would require approval of some sort of variance or exception from the applicable development regulations and where payment of a fee is considered to be an adequate form of mitigation. These disagreements are noted. This comment also questions the consideration of factors related to the significance of aesthetics impacts associated with grading and removal of a portion of the on -site significant ridgeline and the effects of night lighting within the proposed residential neighborhoods. One such consideration pertains to the importance of changes in views by "travelers." The Draft EIR focuses on the changes in views of the site's prominent landform on the western side of the site from the perspective of traveling motorists, because impacts to public views are of concern under CEQA, rather than impacts to private views. The viewing experience of motorists is momentary, for a matter of seconds, and quickly shifting as the motorist moves along Bouquet Canyon Road. Further, Bouquet Canyon Road in this area is not designated or recognized in the City's General Plan as a scenic route where protection of scenic natural landforms is required. The level of impact significance associated with modifications to the landforms as viewed from this road, therefore, were determined to be less than significant. Concerning the impact of night lighting on neighboring residents, the discussion on page 3.1-31 of the Draft EIR describes the scope of anticipated outdoor lighting and the required control measures under the City's existing development standards (Section 17.50.050 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code) to ensure that the nighttime illumination is located, oriented and confined to targeted areas within the project site. This will prevent uplighting and off -site glare into existing homes surrounding the project site, including homes along Contessa Avenue, which are located more than 1,500 feet to the west of the nearest proposed home within the project site, separated by other existing homes between that street and Bouquet Canyon Road. Comment 3: Other issues have been sent to you by many people and friends such as Susan Maness who beautifully addressed many I have not. I agree with Susan 100%. In closing, I am opposed to this project and will be contacting the City Council members so the Mayor doesn't just ask the question, at the public meeting, of you and staff, "Do I hear a motion... Should the project be approved since everything was answered?" Hardly, issues and concerns were just added to the file and everybody says Yea and life goes on. Response 3: Please refer to the responses to comments by Susan Maness, later in this section of the Final EIR. The second part of this comment indicates opposition to the project. This is noted. -a lire lire e in I11 etteir Ntxirnbeir City of Santa Clarita Planning Division June 4, 2020 Attn: Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner- Bouquet Canyon Draft EIR 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 I want to thank you for your fine presentation during the zoom meeting of Jun 2, 2020. However, after consideration, I am in opposition to the Bouquet Canyon High Density home development and road realignment designated as project 18-089. Please included this letter as part of in the EIR written inputs. As I understand it the next step will be to present the information and public input proposal to the Santa Clarita City Council for review. May I start with a basic question related to the process. Do the council members and Planning Commission have access to the comments and letters such as this to read before city council meeting? And are they required to read them? And most importantly, will the Planning Commission or City Council respond to the individual public concerns? Are they required to respond? Your letter regarding the meeting of June 2 seems to answer my questions as it basically squashes all written public input with the statement "Comments will be made part of the meeting record, but not read into the record." Does anyone read them? This project brings a lot of thoughts to mind for planning considerations for project 18-089. 1 find it difficult to address them all so I will try to highlight a few thoughts and examples. As a resident of the area in question for 49 years I have watched the area expand, resulting in increased needs of the community and resultant environmental impacts. As we go ahead, we need to be sensitive to creating future negative impacts on thousands of people. This project violates many of the EIR concerns as it addresses those elements. Many times, it mentions how it would not meet a standard. While it would not present a problem, it presented a condition with less than significant impact, or similar wording. Adding all the exceptions and waivers presents a development not meeting the local community standards as required. In addition, if it did not meet a standard or regulation, an exception was being requested in the form of a waiver or exception to the standard. In one case the offer was to pay a fee to the city where they did not or could not meet city guidelines. In the big city picture, it moves the process ahead. Where is City's integrity? It is sad that a development can relegate regulations and standards to the trash. Why did we ever set standards or regulations? The ridge line ordinance comes to mind. I was particularly offended by the proposal's concern for maintaining the views for "travelers." If the project violates the ordinance to not change the ridge line, then it fails. End of discussion. What about the views of the residents across and above the development? Residents on Contessa Ave (zip 91350) come to mind. They will now be looking down on rooftops and congestion in lieu of ridgelines or wildlife.... and see polluting bright lights in their bedrooms at night. Also, the removal of local Oak trees was passed over like it was no big deal. It is a big deal. Other issues have been sent to you by many people and friends such as Susan Maness who beautifully addressed many I have not. I agree with Susan 100%. In closing, I am opposed to this project and will be contacting the City Council members so the Mayor doesn't just ask the question, at the public meeting, of you and staff, "Do I hear a motion... Should the project be approved since everything was answered?" Hardly, issues and concerns were just added to the file and everybody says Yea and life goes on. Sincerely, Electronically signed Jim Crowley 20946 Alaminos Dr Saugus, CA 91350 (661) 755-7377 6-3 Los ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC Responses to Comment Letter Number 7 by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works dated June 4, 2020 Comment 1: 1.1. Clarify that the project is responsible for all increased mitigation requirements over the years, if any, from all local, State, and Federal agencies for any proposed facility that may be transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). The LACFCD will not be responsible for ongoing or future mitigations resulting from this project for any transferrable infrastructure. 1.2. Clarify that the City of Santa Clarita has jurisdiction for all water quality infrastructures resulting from this project. Water quality infrastructures within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are not transferrable to the LACFCD for operation and maintenance. 1.3. Disclose that permit and approval are also required from the LACFCD (through Public Works) for all proposed storm drain connection and facilities to be transferred. For questions regarding comment 1, please contact Jason Rietze of Public Works, Stormwater Planning Division at (626) 300-3248 orjrietze@pw.locounty.gov. Response 1: A Drainage Benefit Assessment District would be established to fund long- term maintenance of the on -site drainage facilities by the City of Santa Clarita. The project developer would be responsible for maintenance of all storm drainage facilities until such time as the District is formed and generates sufficient funding to support the City's maintenance efforts. This District would also fund any ongoing mitigation measures associated with the drainage facilities that may be imposed by state or federal water resources permits. It is noted that any proposed storm drain connections and facilities that are to be transferred to LACFCD would require permitting and approval from LACFCD, through the Department of Public Works. Please refer to the next response, where anticipated maintenance responsibilities for all elements of the project's proposed storm drainage and water quality facilities are identified. Comment 2: "The infiltration basins, biofiltration basins, and two debris/desalting basins south of Bouquet Canyon Road would be maintained by LACFCD." This statement is not factually correct regarding: Water quality infrastructures, such as the infiltration basins and biofiltration basins, within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are not transferrable to the LACFCD for operation and maintenance. Clarify that only transferrable facility would be accepted for operation and maintenance by the LACFCD. 7-1 Response 2: The proposed maintenance responsibilities for the project's storm drainage and water quality facilities have been updated, as follows: Tentative Tract 82126 Drainage Facility Maintenance Responsibility Chart Description Location Maintenance Responsibility Flood control channel Bouquet Creek within project Los Angeles County Flood Control limit including inlet upstream of District bridge Debris basins and storm New Bouquet Canyon Road, drains within public existing Bouquet Canyon Road Los Angeles County Flood Control street and District right of way Copper Hill Drive LID infiltration 5 locations at downstream limits City of Santa Clarita with funding and biofiltration of storm drains provided by Drainage Benefit basins Assessment District Along existing Bouquet Creek Low flow channel flow line parallel to flood Homeowner's Association control channel Goes from upstream limit of inlet Low flow pipe east of proposed bridge to low City of Santa Clarita with funding flow provided by Drainage Benefit channel Assessment District Pipes to LID basin New Bouquet Canyon Road City of Santa Clarita with funding crossing public right of near proposed bridge provided by Drainage Benefit way Assessment District Pipes within individual planning On -site storm drains Homeowner's Association areas Comment 3: The two debris/desilting basins should be constructed to both standards set by the City of Santa Clarita and the LACFCD. Clarify that the City of Santa Clarita is responsible for the storm drain infrastructures operation and maintenance until they are transferred and accepted by the LACFCD. Response 3: It is acknowledged that the project's debris/desilting basins are to be designed and constructed in accordance with both the City and LACFCD standards. Please refer to the preceding response to comment 2, regarding maintenance responsibilities by the developer and a future homeowners association and that the LACFCD would only accept transferrable facilities for operation and maintenance. 7-2 Hai Nguyen C o IYnIIYnCin t 11 etteir Nt IIYnCIII From: Toan Duong <TDUONG@dpw.lacounty.gov> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:18 PM To: Hai Nguyen; scovington@integralcommunities.com Cc: Phoenix Khoury; Jose Suarez; Justin Dulay; Jose Cruz Subject: RE: Bouquet Canyon -- TTM re -submittal `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Hai, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RPPL2020001927) BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject projects Draft Environmental Impact Report. The City of Santa Clarita proposes a development of 375 homes and construction to reconfigure the Bouquet Creek and Bouquet Canyon Road. The following comments are for your consideration: General 1.1. Clarify that the project is responsible for all increased mitigation requirements over the years, if any, from all local, State, and Federal agencies for any proposed facility that may be transferred to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). The LACFCD will not be responsible for ongoing or future mitigations resulting from this project for any transferrable infrastructure. 1.2. Clarify that the City of Santa Clarita has jurisdiction for all water quality infrastructures resulting from this project. Water quality infrastructures within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are not transferrable to the LACFCD for operation and maintenance. 1.3. Disclose that permit and approval are also required from the LACFCD (through Public Works) for all proposed storm drain connection and facilities to be transferred. For questions regarding comment 1, please contact Jason Rietze of Public Works, Stormwater Planning Division at (626) 300-3248 or irietze _ w.lacountye ov. 2. 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems, Pages 3.14-16 "The infiltration basins, biofiltration basins, and two debris/desilting basins south of Bouquet Canyon Road would be maintained by LACFCD." This statement is not factually correct regarding: • Water quality infrastructures, such as the infiltration basins and biofiltration basins, within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita are not transferrable to the LACFCD for operation and 7-3 maintenance. Clarify that only transferrable facility would be accepted for operation and maintenance by the LACFCD. • The two debris/desilting basins should be constructed to both standards set by the City of Santa Clarita and the LACFCD. Clarify that the City of Santa Clarita is responsible for the storm drain infrastructures operation and maintenance until they are transferred and accepted by the LACFCD. For questions regarding comment 2, please contact Alex Mikhailpoor of Public Works, Land Development Division at (626) 458-4921 or ami ail oor w.lacounty. ov. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me or Jose Suarez of Public Works, Land Development Division, at (626) 458-4921 or isuarez w.lacounty. ov. Toan Duong Civil Engineer Los Angeles County Public Works Office: (626) 458-4921 7-4 RITA MAPHIS Responses to Comment Letter Number 8 by Rita Maphis dated June 5, 2020 Comment 1: All around this Project parcel are farms and ranches. On one side a single family homes. I don't see how the Project blends in with the existing homes. The photos in this section show the current theme of the area, and the Project completely changes it. The Project also proposes changes to the ridgeline which will most certainly affect the aesthetics of the area. The single home that currently is in a rural open space will now be surrounded by the city -like Project. If this were my home, I would be deeply saddened that my property was so changed. Response 1: This comment expresses opinions regarding the aesthetic impacts of the project but does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted and has been provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Comment 2: It does not seem logical that adding 370 homes and possibly 1400 cars to this rather remote area will not have a significant effect on the air quality here. The Report lists several "sensitive receptors" located near the Project but does not seem to address what is to be done about it. Also, what about all the residents that individually sensitive to a decrease in the air quality? Response 2: Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the project's short term and long term air quality impacts, in accordance with the methodologies and significance thresholds recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This analysis included identification of a variety of sensitive receptors surrounding the project site and the assessment of localized concentrations of construction emissions and emissions from long-term site activities was focused on the nearest sensitive receptor, a single family home located outside of the project site, on land located directly east of Benz Road at Bouquet Canyon Road near the proposed cul de sac of homes in the northwestern most part of Planning Area 1 A. Pollutant concentrations would be lower at all other, more distant sensitive receptors. As discussed therein, the construction related impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation measures MM 3.2-1 and 3.2-2, to require cleaner diesel engines powering grading machinery and smaller diesel haul trucks, which would substantially reduce the exhaust emissions to below localized and regional significance thresholds. No significant long-term air quality impacts have been identified. Comment 3: How is our wildlife affected? Coyotes are already a problem with less natural space for them to hunt and live. People are always complaining about the danger to their pets, but the coyotes have had so much of their environment encroached upon, they're squeezed into our backyards where they find "Fluffy". 8-1 There are so many eagles, hawks, roadrunners, and owls. We keep taking away their trees. Cutting down the trees and then "paying off" the city for the ones that "couldn't" be replaced is not a good solution. Response 3: A comprehensive survey of biological resources and assessment of project impacts on those resources at the project site were conducted and the results are reported in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. The specific research methods and findings are also documented in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. No significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species were identified, except for potential impacts to burrowing owls or other protected migratory bird species that might be present at the time of construction. Mitigation measure 3.3-2 requires site surveys to look for burrowing owls prior to construction, and if any active burrows are identified, construction must avoid those areas until appropriate owl relocation efforts have been completed, in accordance with guidance provided by California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mitigation measure 3.3-5 requires avoidance of active bird nests throughout construction that occurs during the migratory bird breeding season. As discussed on page 3.3-27 of the Draft EIR, the project would comply with the provisions of the City's oak tree regulations, which allows for removal of native oak trees if suitable replacement oaks are planted and/or fees equivalent to the monetary value of the replacement trees are paid to the City. This is considered sufficient mitigation to offset the impact of removing or significantly encroaching on 27 native oak trees. A total of 91 replacement oaks would be required to offset the impact to 27 oak trees. Comment 4: We have been routinely plagued by droughts. Though we have had a couple of good rainfall years, this is not the norm, and we have to expect more shortages in the near future. Building any large project on an area that currently is open to collect and absorb large amounts of rain water is increasing the chance of shortage, and adding 370 homes (1400 residents) to the demand is dangerous. Response 4: Section 3.14.1 in the Draft EIR discusses impacts to the water supply resources in the Santa Clarita Valley, which are governed by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA). As discussed therein, the project's water demand for potable water and irrigation supplies was calculated and evaluated by the SCVWA, who determined that the project's water demand is accounted for in the most recent Urban Water Management Plan for the SCVWA service area and would not have a significant impact on water supplies. Supplemental Analysis of Groundwater Recharge A supplemental analysis of the project's effects on groundwater recharge within the project site was conducted, to help determine whether the proposed concrete -lined high flow channel would have a significant adverse impact on the volume of annual groundwater recharge, compared to existing conditions. This analysis was prepared by Thomas Harder & Co., a hydrogeological firm that specializes in groundwater 8-2 consulting, with extensive experience evaluating projects in the Santa Clarita Valley.' A copy of the Harder & Co. report is included in the Final EIR, within the Errata section. Approach to Analysis The methodology used to quantify pre- and post -Project recharge involves quantifying recharge in Bouquet Creek and recharge in the retention basins. The former relies on the streamflow data whereas the latter relies on the precipitation data (to quantify runoff into the retention basins) along with an estimate of infiltration rate at the two subarea basins most likely to influence the calculations (i.e. 100A and 300A as noted on the "LID Exhibit" within the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which was provided as Appendix G of the Draft EIR). Recharge associated with high intensity rainfall events that could result in flow from the retention basins into Bouquet Creek are not accounted for in our methodology, primarily due to the uncertainty associated with precisely where such an exchange would occur and expected low frequency of such events. Methodology to Estimate Bouquet Creek Recharge Infiltration within Bouquet Creek was estimated based on historical streamflow records, estimated stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. Daily infiltration is the product of stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. The stream width was based on the stream profile from SIKAND at three stages, 0, 100, and 200 cfs (see Figure 4 in Harder & Co. report). The flows between each stage were assumed to be proportional to the area. Using these proportions, the daily stream profile (including width) was calculated based the daily streamflow data. The width of the stream when flows were greater than 200 cfs were assumed to be equal to the maximum width of the stream profile. The length of the Bouquet Creek within the Project area is approximately 2,000 ft. The infiltration rate was based on three infiltration tests conducted near Bouquet Creek as reported in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. As shown in Figure 2 of the Harder & Co. report, two of the tests were conducted at drainage subarea basin 100A whereas the third was conducted at drainage subarea basin 300A. The average of the adjusted infiltration rates (as presented in the original report) was 8.0 ft/day. Recharge for flows less than 200 cfs were assumed to be the same for pre -Project and Project conditions. Infiltration for flows greater than 200 cfs was limited to that which is calculated for the primary, low flow channel. As noted above, based on the available data daily streamflow exceeded 200 cfs 1 1 times. Methodology to Estimate Captured Runoff Captured runoff was estimated based on historical precipitation data, runoff volumes from SIKAND, the size of the stormwater retention basin, and the estimated infiltration 'Thomas Harder & Co., Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Recharge for Multifamily Residential Development Project (Tentative Tract 82126), Bouquet Canyon, Santa Clarita, California. July 28, 2020. 8-3 rate within subareas 100A 300A, and 400A retention basins. Precipitation runoff was calculated by SIKAND for Subareas 100A, 300A, and 400A as presented in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. Runoff within Subarea 100A will be captured in a 0.5-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 1.75 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 300A will be captured in a 0.09-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.38 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 400A will be captured in a 0.03-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.07 acre-ft. The basins will be unlined and located on the canyon floor alluvium. Based on the available infiltration data noted above, the basins are assumed to have an infiltration rate of 8.0 ft/day, which translates to a combined recharge capacity for both basins of 5.0 acre-ft/day when full. Based on a peak flow hydrologic analysis by SIKAND, a 0.85-inch precipitation event within Subareas 100A, 300A, and 300A would generate 0.86, 0.38, and 0.07 acre-ft of water under Project conditions, respectively. Estimated runoff was based on the proportion of measured daily rainfall to the 0.85-inch baseline. Due to the high recharge rates of the basins, the total capture volume was limited to the total recharge capacity. Results of Pre -Project and Project Recharge Conditions Analysis Based on the analyses described above, the estimated annual recharge within the project area from Bouquet Creek and captured runoff is summarized in the following table: Bouquet Creek Recharge 114 acre-ft/yr 109 acre-ft/yr Subbareas 100A and 300A Captured 0 acre-ft/yr 14 acre-ft/yr Runoff Total I 1 14 acre-ft/yr 1123 acre-ft/yr Based on the results of this analysis, the project would result in an increase in annual groundwater recharge within the project site; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater recharge associated with proposed site improvements, including the proposed concrete channel to carry high storm flows. Comment 5: During the June 2 meeting I understood that two channels were being built through the Project, one concrete bottomed and one dirt bottomed. In reading the EIR I only see the part about the "soft -bottomed" channel. Also at the meeting, I believe we were told that the concrete channel would connect to the existing concrete channel. To my knowledge the channel is dirt -bottomed all the way down past Seco Canyon Road. Is this where a new channel is connecting? 8-4 Response 5: The proposed concrete -lined trapezoidal channel that would carry 100- year storm flows through the project site would connect to the existing channelized /soft -bottom segment of Bouquet Creek located directly north of the project site, west of Hob Avenue, opposite Kathleen Avenue. This is shown conceptually on Figures 2-1 and 2-5 in the Project Description section of the Draft EIR. Comment 6: One benefit of having Bouquet Creek channel here is to help ameliorate the flooding of our canyon should there be any catastrophic break at Bouquet Dam. How does changing the flow of that creek make it safer for those of us living in the canyon? Response 6: The proposed flood control improvements within the project site would benefit the proposed project but would have no effect on possible flooding conditions outside of the project site. Comment 7: This many homes could add -700 children to our school system. Where would they go? How would they get there. More cars. More traffic. Response 7: Potential impacts on local public schools are discussed in Section 3.1 1.3 of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 3.1 1-2, based on factors provided by the local school districts, the project would generate approximately 177 elementary, 37 middle school and 66 high school students annually, over the course of the fully developed project life. As discussed on page 3.1 1-1 1, there is currently sufficient capacity at the affected elementary and high school campuses to absorb the students from this project; however, there is a shortage of classroom space for junior high school students. This project must pay development impact fees to the districts to help finance construction of additional school facilities and offset the incremental impact of this project on school facilities. As such, the project's impact to public schools would be less than significant. Students would travel to elementary, middle and high school campuses via private automobiles and school busses. This traffic would mingle with other project traffic during morning peak hours, and in afternoons, would occur earlier than the peak hour. Traffic associated with transporting students from the project site to local schools was accounted for in the traffic impact analysis prepared for this EIR. Comment 8: Residents who now access Old Bouquet Canyon north of Benz and south of Hob, will be unduly impacted as will those who live on upper Alaminos. Currently those on Bouquet can simply turn to go up(north) on Bouquet Canyon; they will now be forced to drive south to Benz, then north on Alaminos to enter Bouquet Canyon going north. This seems like a strange place to create a park, in the middle of a well -used road. 8-5 Response 8: The project proposes to abandon an existing segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Hob Court and Pam Court, because the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would provide a more direct north/south connection than the existing sweeping curve alignment. This abandoned segment would be removed and replaced with a landscaped, passive recreation area and a walking path that would be available to the public. All existing neighborhoods near the segment to be abandoned would continue to have sufficient access to Bouquet Canyon Road and sufficient opportunities for emergency vehicle access. Please refer to the discussion of proposed changes to local circulation patterns provided on page 3.12-18 of the Draft EIR. While the new alignment of Bouquet Canyon will ultimately result in new routes being taken by residents, the improvements are anticipated to provide benefits to the neighborhood such as reduced commuter cut -through traffic on Benz Road. Comment 9: Where are the traffic signals going to be? Response 9: A traffic signal is to be installed at the new intersection of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and the existing segment, at the northeastern corner of the project site. This would provide adequate level of service for Existing -Plus -Project and interim Year 2028 traffic conditions. This signal is identified in Mitigation Measure 3.12-3. In addition, a traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Kathleen Avenue and Copper Hill Drive, together with widening of Copper Hill to 4 lanes, between Benz Road and Kathleen Avenue. This is required to achieve adequate level of service for interim year 2028 traffic conditions. This signal is identified in Mitigation Measure 3.12-7. Comment 10: At the June meeting I understood that the changes to Bouquet would eliminate the traffic issues at Copper Hill/David Way/Bouquet. Figure 2-5 does not show Copper Hill merging into Old Bouquet Canyon, but still going through two T's one at David Way, and one at Old Bouquet. Will this complex intersection continue to be controlled by the Stop sign at the first T and a signal at Bouquet? Response 10: Proposed modifications to the existing configurations of Copper Hill/David Way/Bouquet Canyon Road are described on page 3.12-18 of the Draft EIR, as stated below: "To mitigate the Project's impact at David Way at Old Bouquet Canyon Road, the traffic signal at this intersection would be removed and David Way between Old Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive would be closed. The roadway closure would eliminate the south leg of the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection and a new east leg would be constructed to connect with Old Bouquet Canyon Road. At the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection, a median island to restrict the left -turn movement (southbound left) from David Way to eastbound Copper Hill Drive would be constructed and David Way would be under stop control with right-in/right-out and left -in movements allowed (no left -turn out allowed)." These modifications were being finalized as the Draft EIR was being prepared for publication and distribution for public review and comment and were not identified on Figures 2-1 or 2-5. Figures 2-1 and 2-5 will be updated to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of David Way/Copper Hill Drive/Bouquet Canyon Road. Comment 11: Will there be pedestrian walkways and bike paths to allow residents from the existing homes to access the trails/bike paths created in the project? Response 11: Sidewalks and bicycle lanes would be provided along both sides of the new Bouquet Canyon Road. The proposed trail network within the project area would be accessible to the public. The following proposed park areas would be accessible to the public: the linear park, ridgeline line park, trailhead, and park areas within Planning Area 4. The only private park areas are the recreation center and a park area within Planning Area 2. All potential crosswalk locations will be analyzed and determined by the City during the road design phase of the project. Comment 12: How does the merge of Old Bouquet and New Bouquet work both north and southbound? • Northbound: is it a signal -controlled intersection? • Southbound: ?? Response 12: As discussed on page 3.12-18 of the Draft EIR, the new intersection (referred to as "merge" in the comment) of New Copper Hill Road /Old Bouquet Canyon Road and New Bouquet Canyon Road (north of Project), will be configured as a "T" intersection and a traffic signal would provide traffic control at the new intersection of Old and New Bouquet Canyon Road at the northeastern edge of the project site. On the westerly side of the Project site, the new intersection (referred to as "merge" in the comment) of Old Bouquet Canyon Road and New Bouquet Canyon Road (south of Project) will be configured as a "T" intersection with Old Bouquet Canyon Road under stop control. A median island at the Old Bouquet Canyon Road (West) and New Bouquet Canyon Road intersection would be constructed. The median island would restrict southbound left -turn movements from Old Bouquet Canyon Road (West) to eastbound New Bouquet Canyon Road. 8-7 Comment 13: Will Old Bouquet Canyon Road be open for the entire duration of the construction (until New Bouquet is completed and available) ? Response 13: Yes. This requirement will be included in the construction specifications for the new Bouquet Canyon Road segment. Comment 14: I'm not sure which section this comment belongs to, but I am certainly concerned about evacuation in case of fire, flood, earthquakes, etc. We currently have 2 evacuation routes, south on Bouquet or north east over Vasquez to Sierra Highway. Vasquez has a reputation of slides and other causes for closure. This leaves us reliant on Bouquet as our only escape route. Adding more traffic here is certainly a concern. Also during construction will our egress be compromised at all? Response 14: Emergency evacuation scenarios are discussed in Section 3.15.4 in the Draft EIR, as part of the consideration of wildfire -related emergencies under Impact 3.15-a. As discussed therein, there would be multiple evacuation routes available in the event of roadway closures due to wildfire or other emergency conditions. While Bouquet Canyon Road would remain a key evacuation route, there are several other routes that could be taken to the west by residents of the proposed project as well as existing residents in those neighborhoods to the north and west of the project site. During project construction, the contractors will be required to maintain thru traffic flow and emergency vehicle access to all surrounding land uses, which is a routine requirement for all construction projects in Santa Clarita. M Hai Nguyen From: rita maphis <ritamaphis@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 4:25 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: EIR Comments CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Rita Maphis 20057 Terrace Court Santa Clarita, CA 91390 ritamaphis@yahoo.com Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner Bouquet Cyn Project 18-089 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com Mr. Nguyen, First of all I would like to apologize for any comments/questions that have already been covered in the EIR. I first heard about this on this last Monday, and attended the virtual meeting on Tuesday. I was overwhelmed by the amount of data being presented. I tried to take some quick notes and after the meeting have spent many hours plodding through the EIR to find the answers to my questions. I simply ran out of time. Perhaps you would consider extending the deadline to allow anyone to further read this extremely detailed report. I appreciate your help and anxiously await some response. Sincerely, Rita Maphis COMMENTS: 99 3.1 Aesthetics All around this Project parcel are farms and ranches. On one side a single family homes. I don't see how the Project blends in with the existing homes. The photos in this section show the current theme of the area, and the Project completely changes it. The Project also proposes changes to the ridgeline which will most certainly affect the aesthetics ofu the area. The single home that currently is in a rural open space will now be surrounded by the city -like Project. If this were my home, I would be deeply saddened that my property was so changed. 3.2 Air Quality It does not seem logical that adding 370 homes and possibly 1400 cars to this rather remote area will not have a significant effect on the air quality here. 2 The Report lists several "sensitive receptors" located near the Project, but does not seem to address what is to be done about it. Also, what about all the residents that individually sensitive to a decrease in the air quality? 3.3 Biological Resource How is our wildlife affected? Coyotes are already a problem with less natural space for them to hunt and live. People are always complaining about the danger to their pets, but the coyotes have had so much of their environment encroached upon, they're squeezed into our backyards where they find "Fluffy". There are so many eagles, hawks, roadrunners, and owls. We keep taking away their trees. Cutting down the trees and then "paying off' the city for the ones that "couldn't" be replaced is not a good solution. 3.9 Hydrology We have been routinely plagued by droughts. Though we have had a couple of good rainfall years, this is not the norm, and we have to expect more shortages in the near future. Building any large project on an area that currently is open to collect and absorb large amounts of rain water is increasing the chance of shortage, and adding 370 homes (1400 residents) to the demand is dangerous. During the June 2 meeting I understood that two channels were being built through the Project; one concrete bottomed and one dirt bottomed. I reading the EIR I only see the part about the "soft -bottomed" channel. Also at the meeting, I believe we were told that the concrete channel would connect to the existing concrete channel. To my knowledge the channel is dirt -bottomed all the way down past Seco Canyon Road. Is this where a new channel is connecting? One benefit of having Bouquet Creek channel here is to help ameliorate the flooding of our canyon should there be any catastrophic break at Bouquet Dam. How does changing the flow of that creek make it safer for those of us living in the canyon? 3.11 Public Services This many homes could add —700 children to our school system. Where would they go? How would they get there. More cars. More traffic. 3.12 Transportation Residents who now access Old Bouquet Canyon north of Benz and south of Hob, will be unduly impacted as will those who live on upper Alaminos. Currently those on Bouquet can simply turn to go up(north) on Bouquet Canyon; they will now be forced to drive south to Benz, then north on Alaminos to enter Bouquet Canyon going north. This seems like a strange place to create a park, in the middle of a well -used road. Where are the traffic signals going to be? 8-10 At the June meeting I understood that the changes to Bouquet would eliminate the traffic issues at Copper Hill/David Way/Bouquet. Figure 2-5 does not show Copper Hill merging into Old Bouquet Canyon, but still going through two T's 1 one at David Way, and one at Old Bouquet. Will this complex intersection continue to be controlled by the Stop sign at the first T and a signal at Bouquet? Will there be pedestrian walkways and bike paths to allow residents from the existing homes to access the trails/bike paths created in the project?uu How does the merge of Old Bouquet and New Bouquet work both north and southbound? Northbound: is it a signal -controlled intersection? Southbound:?? Will Old Bouquet Canyon Road be open for the entire duration of the construction (until New Bouquet is completed and Ilu available)? I'm not sure which section this comment belongs to, but I am certainly concerned about evacuation in case of fire, flood, earthquakes, etc. We currently have 2 evacuation routes, south on Bouquet or north east over Vasquez to Sierra Highway. Vasquez has a reputation of slides and other causes for closure. This leaves us reliant on Bouquet as our only escape escape route. Adding more traffic here is certainly a concern. Also during construction will our egress be compromised at all? 8-11 GEORGE BRODT Responses to Comment Letter Number 9 by George Brodt dated June 5, 2020 Comment 1: 1 read the draft EIR for the subject project and have a concern about the high density of the homes in PA-3 and PA-4. This is inconsistent with the single family homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Response 1: This comment expresses a concern with the development density of the proposed homes in Planning Areas 3 and 4, compared to the density of existing homes in surrounding neighborhoods. The homes proposed in these planning areas are being designed for households that may not be able to afford larger, detached homes on private lots. As such, they are arranged closer together, to spread construction costs over a smaller area which helps reduce final pricing of the homes. The project's overall residential density is well below the maximum allowable under the City's general plan and zoning designations for the project site and represents a suitable combination of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone standards that apply across the site. This is explained on page 2.0-7 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project design clusters homes within the proposed planning areas to reduce the scope of required grading and landform alterations across the site. The proposed residential densities, in and of themselves, would not result in any specific significant environmental impacts. There is no requirement in the City's general plan or zoning regulations that a new residential development project provide identical densities or home siting layouts as surrounding neighborhoods. Comment 2: As a registered Civil and Geotechnical engineer, it is my opinion that the connection of the new Bouquet Canyon and the existing Bouquet Canyon trapezoidal channels will require training walls in the confluence to prevent extreme flood flows from backing up into the project area and flooding the homes in PA-4. The confluence of Haskell Canyon with Bouquet Canyon channel is a good example of what I am talking about. Response 2: This confluence of the new Bouquet Canyon channel and the existing channel will be designed to ensure that all flows are contained within both channels, including freeboard. The ultimate flood control channel design will be reviewed and approved by LA County Dept. of Public Works. 9-1 Hai Nguyen From: George Brodt <gbrodt@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:22 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project DER OIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Mr. Nguyen, I read the draft EIR for the subject project and have a concern about the high density of the homes in PA-3 and PA-4. This j is inconsistent with the single family homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. As a registered Civil and Geotechnical engineer, it is my opinion that the connection of the new Bouquet Canyon and the existing Bouquet Canyon trapezoidal channels will require training walls in the confluence to prevent extreme flood flows from backing up into the project area and flooding the homes in PA-4. The confluence of Haskell Canyon with Bouquet Canyon channel is a good example of what I am talking about. Sincerely, George W Brodt California RCE 19647 California RGE 167 9-2 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY Responses to Comment Letter Number 10 by SCV Water dated June 3, 2020 Comment 1: The DEIR project description is unclear and inconsistent with regard to the design of the drainage structures which are to accommodate the storm drainage for the Project. In Section 2.0, the DEIR describes the concrete drainage channel to be soft bottomed and in Section 3.9 the channel is proposed to be designed with concrete lined sides and grade control structures on the invert. It is our understanding that the current design proposes to construct a solid bottom channel due to the need to manage storm water flows. The project description should be revised to clearly describe the proposed facilities. Response 1: The description of the proposed "soft -bottom" flood control channel through the project site presented in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR is incorrect. As described in Section 3.9 (see page 3.9-17), this channel would be designed as a trapezoidal -shaped concrete channel, including a concrete lined -bottom, to carry high intensity rainstorms through the project site quickly and without inundating land or homes outside of the channel. The description of this channel that appears on page 2.0-16 will be corrected in the Final EIR Errata section. Comment 2: SCV Water has concerns about the drainage facilities proposed in the DEIR. SCV Water recommends that to the extent possible, floodplains remain undeveloped, and if creeks and rivers are channelized, they should remain soft bottomed. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries provide a vital water resource to the Santa Clarita Valley through the percolation of water into the local groundwater basins. Section 3.9 states that Bouquet Creek will be maintained as a natural, unpaved and vegetated drainage course and provide groundwater recharged as it does today. However, the size of the proposed natural channel will be substantially smaller than it is today and indeed smaller than the concrete lined channel that we understand is now being proposed for the concrete lined channel. Response 2: Rationale for Proposed Design of High Flow Concrete -Lined Channel The initial approach to this project was to provide a hardened embankment protection along both sides of Bouquet Wash and leave the area between as a natural soft bottom stream. It was assumed that the embankment protection would be placed at the County floodway limits. The hydraulic calculations for this concept showed that, using a standard County roughness coefficient (n=0.060 to n=0.085) which assumes vegetation will be allowed to grow uninhibited in the soft bottom, the water surface in the channel would be significantly higher (up to 1 V) than existing Bouquet Canyon Road. Adjustments were then made to widen the bottom to account for raise in water surface. Even by eliminating all development on the north side of the channel and expanding the soft bottom 300' to the south, the water surface would still be up to 3' 10-1 higher than Bouquet Canyon Road. These results indicated that an exclusively soft bottom channel would not be an acceptable alternative for this project. Another alternative was to consider using a soft bottom channel with no vegetation allowed in the entire invert similar to the existing downstream channel. This would reduce the roughness coefficient to 0.035. This would require a top width of at least 240' or more to convey the flow. Point stabilizers and or drop structures would be needed to prevent erosion in the bottom due to the steepness of the channel. This would eliminate the existing jurisdictional area and not allow for revegetation in order to maintain the n value. The size of the footprint of this alternative, the elimination of jurisdictional vegetation and the County's reluctance to rely on the ability of a channel to be cleared on a regular basis to maintain its ability to safely transmit flood flows led the project's civil engineer to conclude that this would not be an acceptable alternative. The next alternative evaluated was a hard bottom channel for flood control with a natural low flow channel running parallel. This allows for a natural area within the existing jurisdictional flow line areas and provides the opportunity for ground water recharge during these higher frequency lower intensity storm events. The hydraulics for this system showed that existing Bouquet Canyon Road was no longer lower than the water surface in the channel and this was decided to be the preferred alternative. Within the project footprint, including the offsite improvements required for the construction on new Bouquet Canyon Road, there is currently a total of 8.2 acres within the 100 year FEMA Zone A floodplain. The FEMA floodplain has been established using flow rates based on a hydrologic analysis which relies on actual stream gage data. The 100 year flood is defined as a flood that has 1/100 or 1% chance of occurring within any given year. Of these 8.2 acres, approximately 2.6 acres would remain as either landscaped slopes or revegetated jurisdictional area. The remaining area would be utilized for the hard bottom channel. The revegetated jurisdictional areas would be designed with a flat longitudinal slope to provide a greater opportunity for off season dry weather and lower intensity rainy season flows to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater table. In addition to the groundwater recharge opportunities within the low flow channel, this project has also proposed two infiltration basins. These basins are adjacent to the wash and were proposed to address LID requirements. These basins will take the runoff from our newly created impervious areas and infiltrate both non -storm (irrigation water, etc.) as well as low intensity storms (typically the first 1/4" of rainfall which includes 85% of the rainfall events in our region). This will provide additional groundwater recharge opportunities, as discussed in the Supplemental Groundwater Recharge Analysis, below. Overall, this project covers approximately 1,900 linear feet of Bouquet Creek. This represents 3.6% of the approximately 52,000 linear foot total length of the creek from Bouquet reservoir to the existing flood control channel. As such, in addition to the 10-2 recharge provided by the project, the existing natural streambed upstream to the reservoir will continue to act to recharge the groundwater as well. There will also be areas within the project that are not being developed and will remain in their current condition. The oak grove area near the downstream boundary of the project in particular will remain and continue to provide groundwater recharge of runoff from the adjacent hillside. The proposed drainage concept has been shown on the tentative map and the hydrology / LID map and study. The hydrology and LID was reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, prior to publication of the Draft EIR. Supplemental Groundwater Recharge Analysis A supplemental analysis of the project's effects on groundwater recharge within the project site was conducted, to help determine whether the proposed concrete -lined high flow channel would have a significant adverse impact on the volume of annual groundwater recharge, compared to existing conditions. This analysis was prepared by Thomas Harder & Co., a hydrogeological firm that specializes in groundwater consulting, with extensive experience evaluating projects in the Santa Clarita Valley.' A copy of the Harder & Co. report is included in the Final EIR, within the Errata section. Approach to Analysis The methodology used to quantify pre- and post -Project recharge involves quantifying recharge in Bouquet Creek and recharge in the retention basins. The former relies on the streamflow data whereas the latter relies on the precipitation data (to quantify runoff into the retention basins) along with an estimate of infiltration rate at the two subarea basins most likely to influence the calculations (i.e. 100A and 300A as noted on the "LID Exhibit" within the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which was provided as Appendix G of the Draft EIR). Recharge associated with high intensity rainfall events that could result in flow from the retention basins into Bouquet Creek are not accounted for in our methodology, primarily due to the uncertainty associated with precisely where such an exchange would occur and expected low frequency of such events. Methodology to Estimate Bouquet Creek Recharge Infiltration within Bouquet Creek was estimated based on historical streamflow records, estimated stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. Daily infiltration is the product of stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. The stream width was based on the stream profile from SIKAND at three stages, 0, 100, and 200 cfs (see Figure 4 in Harder & Co. report). The flows between each stage were assumed to be proportional to the area. Using these proportions, the daily stream profile (including width) was calculated based the daily streamflow data. The width of the stream when 'Thomas Harder & Co., Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Recharge for Multifamily Residential Development Project (Tentative Tract 82126), Bouquet Canyon, Santa Clarita, California. July 28, 2020. 10-3 flows were greater than 200 cfs were assumed to be equal to the maximum width of the stream profile. The length of the Bouquet Creek within the Project area is approximately 2,000 ft. The infiltration rate was based on three infiltration tests conducted near Bouquet Creek as reported in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. As shown in Figure 2 of the Harder & Co. report, two of the tests were conducted at drainage subarea basin 100A whereas the third was conducted at drainage subarea basin 300A. The average of the adjusted infiltration rates (as presented in the original report) was 8.0 ft/day. Recharge for flows less than 200 cfs were assumed to be the same for pre -Project and Project conditions. Infiltration for flows greater than 200 cfs was limited to that which is calculated for the primary, low flow channel. As noted above, based on the available data daily streamflow exceeded 200 cfs 1 1 times. Methodology to Estimate Captured Runoff Captured runoff was estimated based on historical precipitation data, runoff volumes from SIKAND, the size of the stormwater retention basin, and the estimated infiltration rate within subareas 100A 300A, and 400A retention basins. Precipitation runoff was calculated by SIKAND for Subareas 100A, 300A, and 400A as presented in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. Runoff within Subarea 100A will be captured in a 0.5-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 1.75 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 300A will be captured in a 0.09-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.38 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 400A will be captured in a 0.03-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.07 acre-ft. The basins will be unlined and located on the canyon floor alluvium. Based on the available infiltration data noted above, the basins are assumed to have an infiltration rate of 8.0 ft/day, which translates to a combined recharge capacity for both basins of 5.0 acre-ft/day when full. Based on a peak flow hydrologic analysis by SIKAND, a 0.85-inch precipitation event within Subareas 100A, 300A, and 300A would generate 0.86, 0.38, and 0.07 acre-ft of water under Project conditions, respectively. Estimated runoff was based on the proportion of measured daily rainfall to the 0.85-inch baseline. Due to the high recharge rates of the basins, the total capture volume was limited to the total recharge capacity. Results of Pre -Project and Project Recharge Conditions Analysis Based on the analyses described above, the estimated annual recharge within the project area from Bouquet Creek and captured runoff is summarized in the following table: 10-4 Bouquet Creek Recharge I 1 14 acre-ft/yr 1109 acre-ft/yr Subbareas 100A and 300A Captured 0 acre-ft/yr 14 acre-ft/yr Runoff Total I 1 14 acre-ft/yr 1123 acre-ft/yr Based on the results of this analysis, the project would result in an increase in annual groundwater recharge within the project site; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater recharge associated with proposed site improvements, including the proposed concrete channel to carry high storm flows. 10-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 90A6979C-CO5C-4782-817D-3C4705F21 D91 lire lire e in I11 etteir Ntxirnbeir 1.0 SCVWater IlResoullces & Outreach ,lh 20001 Suiiniinit ir(. e, Sainta Uarka, CA 0°1000 0040 WATER (661) 207...°1600 I you irSM/ a ta~llrv.(;oiin June 3, 2020 # r.FlINFIN- +1 ■ 00, � + .!II : ► s +r +r s +r I= M7* 7 i " � ,� proposed Bouquet Canyon Project (Project). The Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) provides groundwater an• imported water to the residencesand businesses of the Santa Clarita concernsValley. As such, we have ■ oepotential im• on the regionsgroundwater supplies and offer the following comments: The DEIR project description is unclear and inconsistent with regard to the design of the drainage structures which are to accommodate the storm drainage for the Project. In Section 2.0, the DEIR describes the concrete drainage channel to be soft bottomed and in Section 3.9 the channel is proposed to be designed with concrete lined sides and grade control structures on the invert. It is our understanding that the current design proposes to construct a solid bottom channel due to the need to manage storm water flows. The project description should be revised to clearly describe the proposed facilities. SCV Water has concerns about the drainage facilities proposed in the DEIR. SCV Water recommends that to the extent possible, floodplains remain undeveloped, and if creeks and rivers are channelized, they should remain soft bottomed. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries provide a vital water resource to the Santa Clarita Valley through the percolation of water into the local groundwater basins. Section 3.9 states that Bouquet Creek will be maintained as a natural, unpaved and vegetated drainage course and provide groundwater recharged as it does today. However, the size of the proposed natural channel will be substantially smaller than it is today and indeed smaller than the concrete lined channel that we understand is now being proposed for the concrete lined channel. SCV Water requests the City have the developer explore additional solutions to reduce impacts to the floodplain and that do not include hard -bottomed channels. 10-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 90A6979C-CO5C-4782-817D-3C4705F21 D91 SCV Water appreciates your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, EP DacuSigned by: A AtAs 51456A=78MA9_.. Dirk Marks Director of Water Resources cc: Stephen L. Cole —Assistant General Manager 10-7 Los ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Responses to Comment Letter Number 11 by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department dated April 28, 2020 Comment 1: Under 2.1 1.1. 1 Existing Conditions, sentence two should be corrected to state that there are 15 fire stations with 14 engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serving the Santa Clarita Valley. Sentence six should be updated to state that during 2019, Station 108 had an average emergency response time of 6 minutes and 37 seconds. Response 1: Sentences two and six in the referenced subsection of the EIR will be amended pursuant to this comment. Comment 2: The Land Development Unit has reviewed the proposed project. The Land Development Unit recommends that the proposed project not to proceed to the public hearing process until the following corrections have been addressed. 1. Provide a second means of access for Planning Area's 1, 2 and 3. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 2. The private streets in Planning Areas 2 (Lot 4) and 3 (Lot 5) are required to be on - site Fire Apparatus Access Roads and shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the tentative tract map along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 3. Provide a minimum of 20 feet on each side of the roadway for "F" Street where the Fire Apparatus Access Road consists of a divided roadway, the gate width shall be not less than 20 feet. Each side of the roadway shall be clear -to -sky. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 4. Indicate the location of the Fire Department Turnarounds on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 5. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Indicate the centerline, inside, and outside turning radii for each change in direction on the plan. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 6. Clearly identify firefighter walkway access routes on the site plan and indicate the required width along with the slope. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan. 7. Clearly identify firefighter walkway access routes on the site plan and indicate the required width along with the slope and walking surface material. 8. Indicate the location of all proposed gates within the proposed development and provide a gate detail in compliance of "Condition of Approval" comment 18. 9. Provide the type of construction and total square footage for the proposed multi -family buildings, along with written verification of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance of NFPA 13. 10. Indicate location of all existing public fire hydrant with 200 feet of the proposed development. Indicate compliance on the revised plans. 11. Provide the elevations for the proposed single and multi -family buildings. 12. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Clearly indicate the height of all parapets in a section view. Response 2: This comment lists routine design standards and terms of approval to be incorporated during the plan check process. It does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. However, the Draft EIR does address item 1 of this comment, which concerns a second means of access to Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. Mitigation Measure 3.12-13 found in Section 3.12 Transportation of the Draft EIR, specifically provides for a secondary access for the homes in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. The mitigation measure requires the access to be identified on the project plans and to be approved by the County Fire Department and the City prior to approval of a Final Tract Map. Comment 3: Submittals to the Fire Department -Land Development Unit: The revised tentative tract map and site plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epicia. loco unty. gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire -Land Development City Request - Tentative Map -Tract. Response 3: This comment explains requirements for submittal of the revised tentative tract map to the Land Development Unit of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, as part of the post -project approval plan check process. This comment is noted. Comment 4: FINAL MAP REQUIREMENTS 1. A copy of the Final Map shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to recordation. a. The Final Parcel Map shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epicia.loco unty.gov. The applicant will 11-2 need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire -Land Development -City Request -Final Map -Tract. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will be addressed. 2. Access as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles Fire Code), which requires an all-weather access surface to be clear to sky. 3. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lan" with the widths clearly depicted. The areas for parking shall be designated outside of the fire lanes. 4. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the some access. Such language shall be included in the Covenant Conditions and Restricts (CC&R) document and shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to Final Map clearance. 5. Submit a copy of the Grading Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. Compliance required prior to Final Map clearance. a. The Grading Plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epicia. loco unty. gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire -Land Development -City Request -Grading. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee(s) will be addressed. 6. Submit the water plans indicating the new fire hydrant locations to the Land Development Unit for review. The required public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed buildings. a. The water plan shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epicia. loco unty. gov. The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire -Land Development -City Request -Fire Hydrant. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will be addressed. 7. Prior recordation, provide written verification that the required fire hydrants have been bonded for in lieu of installation. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: The proposed project is required to provide a second means of access. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. 11-3 2. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lan" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. 3. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. 4. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, Count of Los Angeles Fire Code. 5. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. 6. Fire Apparatus Access Road Width Requirements. The private on -site streets shall be incompliance of the Los Angeles Public Works "Private Driveway and Traffic Calming Design Guidelines Manual. a. For the Detached Single -Family Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the buildings, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. b. For the Attached Multi -Family Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 7. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. 8. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads in excess of 150 feet in -length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. 9. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaces so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fire Apparatus Access Roads having a grade of 10 percent or greater shall have a paved or concrete surface. 10. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not exceed 15 percent in grade. 11. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE." Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. 12. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manners, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths of clearances established in Section 503.2.1 and Section 503.2.2 shall be maintained at all times. 13. Traffic Calming Devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. 11-4 14. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. 15. Approved building address numbers, building numbers, or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. 16. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1 17. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. 18. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. 19. Gate Requirements - The method of gate control shall be subject to review by the Fire Department prior to clearance to proceed to public hearing. All gates, to control vehicular access, shall be in compliance with the following: a. The keypad location shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right-of-way. b. Provide a minimum 32-foot turning radius beyond the keypad, prior to the gate entrance at a minimum width of 20' for turnaround purposes. c. The gated entrance design with a single access point (ingress and egress) shall provide for a minimum width of 26 feet clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way. d. Where the Fire Apparatus Access Road consists of a divided roadway, the gate width shall be not less than 20 feet. Each side of the roadway shall be clear -to -sky. e. Construction of gates shall be materials that allow manual operations by one person. f. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. g. The security gate shall be provided with an approved means of emergency operation, and shall be maintained operational at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. h. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 11-5 i. Gates intended for automatic operations shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200. j. All locking devices shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices. k. An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037 shall be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box shall be determined by the Fire Inspector. Response 4: This comment consists of standard requirements for incorporation into the Final Tract Map, which will be prepared and reviewed for approval, after the City takes action on the proposed project. Since this comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is required. Comment 5: WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: 1. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4" x 2-112" brass or bronze conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. 2. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 3. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this project is 4,000 GPM at 20 pounds psi residual pressure for 4 hours. Three (3) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. a. The fire flow is subject to reduction with the submittal of additional information. 4. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. 5. The public fire hydrant locations will be addressed with submittal of the revised plans. Response 5: This comment consists of standard requirements for the project's Water System. Since this comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is required. Comment 6: FUEL MODIFICATION This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to the issuance of the building permits. Please contact the Department's Fuel Modification Unit for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702-2904. 11-6 They may be reached at (626) 969-5205 or visit t.lffp„L./,/y r ry,,fi.r.c ,,l..ocou For any questions regarding the Land Development Unit report please contact FPEA Wally Collins at (323) 890-4243 or /cy; 1„C1;;c ,,11tl .�. Response 6: A detailed description of the Los Angeles County Fire Department's Fuel Modification Plan is found on page pages 3.15-9 and 3.15-10. A Preliminary Fuel Modification Plan was submitted to the Department on October 23, 2019 and deemed adequate by the Department. Comment 7: FORESTRY DIVISION - OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. Under the Los Angeles County Oak tree Ordinance, a permit is required to cut, destroy, remove, relocate, inflict damage or encroach into the protected zone of any tree of the Oak genus which is 25 inches or more in circumference (eight inches in diameter), as measured 4 %2 feet above mean natural grade. If Oak trees are known to exist in the proposed project area further field studies should be conducted to determine the presence of this species on the project site. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further comments regarding this project. For any questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant Joseph Brunet at (818) 890-5719. Response 7: The entirety of the project site is within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Santa Clarita. As such, the County's oak tree regulations do not apply to this project. Erosion controls and watershed management are addressed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of this Draft EIR. Rare and endangered species and vegetation impacts are addressed in Section 3.3 Biological Resources of this Draft EIR. Compliance with countywide standards for fuel modification and construction in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is addressed in Section 3.15 Wildfire. Potential impacts to protected oak trees are addressed in both Section 3.1 Aesthetics and 3.3 Biological Resources. 11-7 Comment 8: HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire Department advises that an abandoned petroleum oil/gas well is located on the project site. Petroleum oil wells that pose a potential health hazard or environmental impact to the project site should be evaluated, assessed, and/or mitigated per the requirements of the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CaIGEM, formerly known as DOGGR). Any contaminated soil (resulting from past petroleum oil well activities) that is discovered at the site would potentially require environmental oversight by the appropriate authorized government agencies, such as CaIGEM, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The HHMD Site Mitigation Unit is currently not available at this time to conduct environmental oversight for the project (on a contract cost -recovery, basis). Please contact HHMD senior typist -clerk, Perla Garcia at (323) 890-4035 or dq.:..g.q;rcia..<�1fire.:..laco.u:�:n„��:...g. ,fir, if you have any questions. Response 8: The existence of an abandoned oil/gas well is disclosed in Draft EIR Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on pages 3.8-7 to 3.8-8. As noted therein, this well was properly abandoned in accordance with then -current DOGGR standards. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires the project applicant to test the well for leakage and the soil around the well for the presence of significant amounts of hydrocarbons, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, so that any need for further remediation can be determined and accomplished at that time. 11-8 CI HYI,,, L, OSSY FIIHF C,H'CF'F F0HE8TE,,',R & PRE WARDEN 320 NORTH EA TEnN AVENUE ( "a) 6EI-2426 w .nure.I1 couFmy. "PiDud Protectors of Lite, P'ropet yand the, nvir meet.,, Cairimirineint IIII etteir Nwriinbeir I u u Hai Rguyen, Associate, Planner y of Santa C l rit Planning Division 23920 Valencb,Boulevard Santa l rft , GA 913,55 PLANNING DIVISION: HIMA L. 80LI I C si' bosiricr , A E RICDLEY-TI-I4 7rala EFI'ON Dil I PIC I E4IE11V. & KUk IIL G'HMD DISTRICT' JANC E HAIHN FOURTH DI'S"q"N"1C] KA1„HRYN RARGI"P F llI' faIS1IF;IC'T" Under 3.11.11 Existing Conditions, sentence two should be corrected to State tfit them are 1: 5 fire stations with 14 engine companies,, 5 paramedic squads, 11 hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladld r trucks au ing the Santa Clarita Valley. a ,I SERVING THE. UMI COOP . RA-FFAREAS OF 1.03VANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES, OF; Ar,0'IjRA °II_I.S Lp l A?iA .A^ EiLMO NTE MF"M STIRY LAVrN-MALE PARAMOUNT SIGNAL HIM AWIFI';.&A. UdISON IaARDENA IfWICILEV1000 fLOMITA. IFMIODR1.1iERA WU7HIuLN NN'TE �AZUSA CSHrir,IC7a GaLEhll7�WRA IlA`wNINDALFI L`�"M1dkMdP:OD E N]INN+A SOUTll6A'TE BALGNWINPARK CLaAH;EWON7 HAWAIIANGARDElNS LYw4"rMYkDA,.WO,,.VIHY"AVIGI Aa1AI. BU PANGHQPALOSVI„RDES F"F'MFIXEC11Y BELL, C MiERGE 'I'Wrr-O ANE I.A W,IAF RA NrIPlAb"WQ0FJ1 ft4")U.1% HIN,,,LS WALNUT BEF-L AFutiI;,FF COMM 1-III''RhaMOSA 111P'A ;H LA �AINIFNA0A NCR, :ALL ROLLING I IINJI s II;Ei,cArI..,s WY� if MOLLMAhPI:OD HIINI.,V.N L I r�l"?F1 CUM NINGM1�E N H� LLS LAIPUIENTE F",A,I,�IW�uC�IACE HC�GMAI7 WESTL�iKE VIU,.AGE BRA05INFgY CuAMONDBAR IUNTINST'OINPAH!IN L+A'K1="."OUP PAI.FSVERVEwaG'SrA1ES SAINDIIMAS WFIITTfER DUA T E L&MCASTER 11-9 � FA QLAR1FA Hai Nguyen, Asso6ate Planner ApIT11128, 20,20 Page 2 For any questions regarding this, response, please contact Loretta Pa ell, Planning Analyst, at (323)(8,181-2404 or Loretta, Bagwell @ fire. 1acgyD1yR q,�L I the Land 1 1opirnent Unit has reviewed the proposed project. The Land Development Un,it recommends that the proposed project not to proceed to the public hearing process unfil the following corrections have been addressed, Provide a second means of access for Planning A,rea's, 1, 2 and 3, indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract map and site, plan, 2. The private streets in Planning Areas 2 (Lot 4) and 3 (Lot 5) are required to be on -site Flre Apparatus, Access Roads and shall be labeled as ":Private Driveway and Fire Fame""' on the tentative tract map along with the Wdths clearly depicted on, the plan. Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract rnalp, and site, plan, & Provide a minimuirn of 20 feet on each side of the roadway for `F" Street where the Fire Apparatus Access Road consists of a divided roadway,the gate width shall be not less than 20 feet, Each sidle of the roadway, shalll be clear -to -slew Indicate compliance on the revised tentative tract imap and site plan. 4. indicate the I ocat ll o n of, thug Fire Dep artm en't T u rn a, rou n ds o n t h e revised te nitat ive tract map and site pan. 5. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a 32-foot centerline turning radius. indicate the centerline, inside, and outside to ming radii for each change in direction on the plan. Indicate compliance -on the revised tentatilve tract map and site plan. 6., Glearly identify firefighter walkway access routes on the site plan and indicate the required 'width along with the dope. A rniNmurn 5-foot wide approved firefighter access wallkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all reqUired openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. lndlicatecompHance on the revised tentative tract map and site plan, 7. Clearly Identify firefighter walkway access routes on the site plan and indicate the required width allong with the slope and wallklng surface material,, 8.1 Indicate the Iccation of all proposed gates within the proposed development a ond e prvide a gate detail' in compliance lot "Coindition of Approval" comment 18, 9Provide the type of construction and total square footage for the, proposed mufti -family buildings, along with written verification of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance of NFP,A 13, 2 11-10 April 28, 2020 Page 3 10. Indicate locaflon of all existing public fire hydrant wiith 200 feet of the proposed development. Indicate compliance on the revised plans,, 11. Proviidethe elevations for the proposed single and mulfi-farndy buildings,. 2 12. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions, shall snot be installed oini the roof of any Widing in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 1 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on moire than two sides. Cleady indicate the height of all parapets in a section view Subirri to the F'ire Departmerrit-Land Development Unit: 1 The revised tentae plian shall be submitted onHne to the Land Development Unit for review,. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the 3 approprilate plans EPIG-LA, epiiclajacounty.go . 'The applicant will ne ed to apply for the following Plan Ty,pid Develoipmient�Gity Request -Tentative Vlap- Tract, The following are "Condlitions of Approval" for the piropiosed project. I A copy of the Final' Map shall' bie submitted to the Fire, Department for reviewai approva� pdor to recordation. a. The Final Parcel Map shall be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shaft upload a digital copy of the, appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, epic la. lacou intv., oov. The applicant will need to apply for the foflowing Plan Type- Fire -Land Development-Oty Request -Final Map -Tract. The applicant shall folIow the steps, and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will be addressed. 2. Access, as noted on the Tentative and the Exhibit Maps shall comply with Title 21 (County of Los Angeles Subdivision Code) and Section 503 of the Title 32 (County of Los Angeles, FlIre Code), which requires an alt-weatheraccoss surface to, be clear to, sky, 3, The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads, shalli be indicated on the I Final Map, as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane"'with the wl�dths clearly depicted. The areas for parking shall be designated outside of the fire lanes. 4, A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since muitiple units are sharing the same access. Such language shall be included in the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) document and shall be submitted to, the Fire Department for review prior to Final Map clearance. M Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner April 28, 2020 Page 4 5. Submit a copy of the Grading Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. a, The Grading Plan shali be submitted online to the Land Development Unit for review. The applicant shal'I upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, qpjqLaJ@,q-q.inty,_qov, The appkant Ml need to apply for the fol'lowing Plan Type., Fire -Land Development -City Request -Grading. The applicant shall follow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee(s) will be addressed 6, Submit the water plans, indicating the new fire hydrant locations, to the Land Development Unit for review. The, required, public fire hydrants shall be installed prior to construction of the proposed buildings, a. The water plan shall be submitted onfine to the Land Development Unit for revievv. The applicant shall upload a digital copy of the appropriate plans into EPIC -LA, pRjc1a,lacounty.gov, The applicant will need to apply for the following Plan Type: Fire, -Land Development -City Request -Fire Hydrant, The applicant shall folliow the steps and upload the required digital information. The appropriate fee will' be addressed, 4, 7, Prior recordation, provide, written verification that the required fire hydrants have been bonded for in lieu of installation. MMWV�IIJ 1 the proposed project is required to, provide a second means of access. The fire code official is authorized to reqiuire imore than one Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or, other factors that could limit access. Such additional access imust comply with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code. 24, All on-slite Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and F'ire Liane" on the site plan along with the widthis clearly depicted an the plan. Labefing is necessary to assure the access availlabillty for Fire Department use. The designation alliows, for appropriate signage prohibifing parking. 3. Fire, Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the firne of construction, 4All fire Marne s shall be clear, of Will encroachments and .hall be imaintalirled in accordance wiith, the Title 3,21, County of ILos Angeles Fire Code. 5, The, Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. 11-12 A' April! 28t 2020 Page 5 6, Fire Apparatus, Access Road Width Requirements. The private on -Site streets shall be Incompliance of the Los Angeles Public Works "Private Driveway and Traffic Calming DesignGuidelines Manual. a, Forthe Detached Single -Family Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an, unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the, building. b, For the attached Multi-Famity Residential, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, and an unobstructed vertical clearance ;Uoar to sky"' Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 1 50feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building, T The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as, originally approved by the fire code official. 8. Dead-end Fire Apparatus Access Roads in excess of 150 feet in -length shall be provided Mth an approved Fire Department turnaround. 4, 41 Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the impos ect load of fire apparatus weighing 7'5,000 pounds andl shall be surfaced so, as provide all-weather driving capabillifies. Rre Apparatus; Access Roads having a grad of 10 percent or, greater shal] have a paved or concrete surface. I 111111IIII 111111111111111111,1111 !11111! 111111111! 1111111111 lilill! I Flil III 1111:13= ill. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKlNG, - FSE LANE." Signs shall have a minirnum dimension, of 12 inches wide by 1B inches high and have, red letters, on a white reflective background, Signs shall be provided for Hire apparatus access roads, to cleady indicate 'the entrance to such road:, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire linspectoir. 12, Fire Apparatus Access Roads, shall not be obstructed in any maniner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to,, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths; and clearances established in Section 503,21 and Section 503.2,2 shall be maintained at all tirnes. 13. Traffic Calming Devices, including buIt not limited'to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall, be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official, 14. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway Ileadinig from the Fire Department Access, Road to all required openings in'thie building's exterior walls shall be provided for f irefiighfing and rescue purposes. 11-13 Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner AprN 28, 2020 Page 6 15. Approved building address, numbers, building numbers, or approved building identification s,hiall be provided and maintained so as to Ibe plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property., The numbers shall contrast kith their background, be AraNc numerals, or alphabet letters,, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minirrium stroke, width of 0,5 inch, M Multiplie residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Su ich numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure, or mounted on, a post independent of 'the structure and shall be positioned to be p[ainly visible from the street or road as, required by, Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505. 1, 17. Security barriers, vIi,sual screen barriers,, or other obstructions shall not be, installed on the roof of any Ibuildin,g in such a manner as to obstruct ti ref ighter access or egress in the event of fire, or other, emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on moire than two, sides. 18. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one, Fire Apparatus Access Road based on the potential for irnpaiirment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. Such additional access must comply with Title 21 of the Los, Angeles, County Code. 4, 1; 91,, Gate Requirements - The method of gate control shall besubject to review by the Dire Department, prior to clearance to proceed to public hearing. A11 gates, to, control vehicular access, shall be in coirnpluance with the following: a. The keypad location shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the pub is right-of-way., b. Provide, a minimum 2-foot tuming radius beyond the keypad, prior to the gate entrance at a minimum wlidth of 20'for turnarouind purposes., C. The gated entrance design with a single access point (ingress and egress) shall provide for a minimum width of 26feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is, clear of the access way, d. Where the Fire Apparatus Access R oad consists of a divided roadway, the gate width, shall be not less than 20 feet, Each side of the roadway shall be clear -to- sky, e, Construction of gates shall be materials that allow manual operations, by one person.. 11-14 VVIIII-11yr,71 - - SMIFF7 April 28, 2020 Page 7 9. The security gate shall be provided with an approved means of emergency operation, and shall be, maintained oipierafionall at all times and replaced or repaired when defective. h. Electric gate, operators, whye provided, shall be listed in accordance with UIL 325. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F22001, lil locking devices shallcomply with the County, of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for lnstaflation, of Emergency Access Devices, K An ,approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037shall) Ibe provided as required by Fire Gorte,506, The location of each key box shall be determined by the Fire Inspector, 1 All tire hydrants shall measure 6"'x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze conforming to curre. nt AWWA standard C503 or approved equal ainid shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. 2. All required Ipublic fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and accepted prior to beginning construction, Fire Code 5014 3, The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants foir this project is 4,000 PM at 20 pounds psi residual pressure for 4 hours. Three (3) pUblic fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire filaw. a. The fire flow is subject to reduction with the submiRta] of additional information. 4. An approved automatic fire sprinkler System is requiired for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans, to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan, Check Unit for review and approval prior to, installation, 5. The public fire, hydrant locations wiilll be addressed with submittalof the revised plans, jIAjKkj,[OjKWOjAW . Qa M 5 This property is locarted within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to, the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit, prior to the issuancle of the buildingi permits. Please 6 contact the IDepairliment's Fuel Modification Unit; for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angoieno, Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702-2904. Hai Nguyen, Associate PlIanner April , 21020 Page 6 They may be reached at (626) 9691-5205 or visit https://www,f ire Jaciountygov/forestry- 6 division/fore strv-filuel- modif icat ion,/ For aniy questions regarding the Land Development Unit report, please contact, FPEA Wally Collins at l 890-4243 o r Wall .Collins @'f ire, Hacountyaov. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rareand endangered species, vegetation, fuel 'modifilicat,ion for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oa,k, Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be 6c1dressed. Under the Los Angeles County Claktree, Ordinall a permit is required to cut, destroy, remove, relocate, inflict damage or encroach into, the protected zone of any tree of the Oak genu,s,which is 25 inches or more in circumference (eight inches in diameter), as, measured 4 1/2 feet above mean natural grade. If Oak trees are known to exist in the proposed project area further field studies should be conducted to determine the presence of this species on the project site, The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has, no, further comments, regarding this project. For any, questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant, Joseph Brunet at il 8) 8901-57191. I The Health Hazardous Materials Division (H'HMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire Department advises that an abandoned petroleium, oil/gas, well) is located on the project site. PetraIl oll wells that pose a potential health hazard or, environmental impact to the project sfte should be evaluated, ,assessed, and/or mitigated per the, r,equiirements of the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (Call formerly known, as DOGGR). .Any contaminated soil (re,sulliting from past petroleum oil well activities) that is discovered at the site wl potentially require environmental oversight by the appropriate authorized government agencies, such as all the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Califorrria Department of Toxic Substances Control., The HHMD Site Mitigation Unit is currently riot available at this time to conduct environin'Ill oversight for the project (on a contract, cost - recovery, basis). Please contact HHMD senior typist -clerk, Perla Garcia at (323) 890-4035 or a@fJrelaco!jnNqoy if you have any questions. MR11 ArrIMIMM. � I�EMIMMMM 0 91 11-16 AssociateHai Nguyen, Planner April \a?< Page Very truly yours, \? \\ / ~ \■.«.» <■.\t2<~«' �s-�<«°22«;«^ ]]-17 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Responses to Comment Letter Number 12 by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife dated June 10, 2020 Comment 1: CDFW's Role CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 71 1.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", as defined by state law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state -listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, § 1900 et seq.) authorization as provided by the applicable Fish and Game Code will be required. Response 1: This comment explains CDFW's status and responsibilities as a Trustee Agency and as a Responsible Agency, under CEQA and does not address the sufficiency of any part of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. Comment 2: Project Description and Summary Objective: The proposed Project will include the development of 375 homes in five distinct neighborhoods. The development of the site will include extensive alterations to the existing landscape and topography, with substantial site improvements to support a residential community. A major element is the reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain. Other improvements include internal streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, electrical and natural gas infrastructure. This includes off -site connections to existing distribution mains for water, sewer, energy and telecommunications services, private recreation areas, and public parkland and trails. An additional facet of the Project is the realignment of a segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. It would involve abandoning a portion of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road between Hob Avenue and Pam Court and constructing a new segment starting 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road and extending to 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane. The new portion of `PAI Bouquet Canyon Road would be a four -lane roadway with bicycle lanes and parkways on both sides. Location: The Project site is approximately 67.6 acres of undeveloped land located in the Saugus area of the City of Santa Clarita, approximately 0.2 miles to the north of the junction of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road. The site is currently undeveloped and is covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills on the west, and Bouquet Creek, which flows along the northern portion of the site from east to west. Response 2: This comment presents a summary of the project description provided in the Draft EIR, and does not address the sufficiency of any part of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. Comment 3: Comments and Recommendations CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Santa Clarita (City) in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science -based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). Response 3: This comment is an introductory statement to specific comments on various parts of the Draft EIR analysis of impacts to biological resources. It does not address the sufficiency of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. Comment 4: Impacts to Unarmored Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) Issue: CDFW is concerned that the Project is impacting Bouquet Creek, which is occupied by unarmored threespine stickleback. According to CNDDB, there are numerous historical records of unarmored threespine stickleback, a state fully protected species, in Bouquet Creek. Except as provided in the Fish and Game Code (e.g., for necessary scientific research), take of any fully protected species is prohibited and cannot be authorized by CDFW (Fish and Game Code § 5515 and § 3511). "Take" is defined in Section 86 of Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CDFW cannot authorize the take of any fully protected species as defined by State law. State fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for its take except for collecting those species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for protection of livestock (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515). CDFW has advised the Permittee `W that take of any species designated as fully protected under the Fish and Game Code is prohibited. CDFW recognizes that certain fully protected species are documented to occur on, or in, the vicinity of the project area, or that such species have some potential to occur on, or in, the vicinity of the project area, due to the presence of suitable habitat. Specific impacts: The Project may result in the loss of streams, associated watershed function, and biological diversity that could directly or indirectly impact the local population of unarmored threespine stickleback. Why impacts would occur. Unarmored threespine stickleback is a small, freshwater fish inhabiting slow -moving reaches or quiet -water microhabitats of streams and rivers. Unarmored threespine stickleback feed primarily on benthic insects, small crustaceans, and snails, and to a lesser degree on flatworms, nematodes, and terrestrial insects. Unarmored threespine stickleback typically prefer a lower stream gradient, slower water velocity, broader channel, and lack of native or invasive aquatic predators. Juveniles and sub -adults also tend to be found in the protection of vegetation, in slow moving or standing water. Adults are found in all areas of the stream. They tend to gather in areas of slower moving or standing water. In places where water is moving rapidly, they tend to be found behind obstructions or at the edge of the stream, especially under the edge of algal mats (Sasaki, 1977). Ground disturbing activities from grading and filling, water diversions and dewatering would physically remove or otherwise alter existing streams or their function and associated riparian habitat on the Project site. Downstream and upstream areas and associated biological resources beyond the Project development footprint may also be impacted by Project related releases of sediment and altered watershed effects resulting from Project activities. Water diversions can cause changes in flow regimes of streams. Thus, diversions can impact unarmored threespine stickleback by: • Reducing the transport of fine sediment downstream causing streams to become graded or buried (Poff et al., 1997, Bauer et al., 2015); • Disconnecting channels from still or slow -moving backwaters that are used by UTS, leading to reductions in reproduction and recruitment (Junk et al., 1989, Sparks, 1995, Poff et al., 1997); • Wash -out and stranding offish (Cushman, 1985); • Changing benthic food sources; • Altering habitat cover and algae; • Dewatering small streams used by unarmored threespine stickleback; and Increasing water temperatures of streams that can slow growth, increase predation risk, and increase susceptibility to disease (Moore and Townsend, 1998, Marine and Cech, Jr., 2004). Evidence impacts would be significant: Unarmored threespine stickleback is an endangered species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) and CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and a Fully Protected species (Fish & 12-3 G. Code § 5515). Therefore, this species qualifies as an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380. Unarmored threespine stickleback, once widespread in streams in southern California, are now only found in the upper Santa Clara River and its tributaries. The species is threatened by loss. Response 4: It is acknowledged that (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsonii; UTS) has historically been documented in Bouquet Canyon Creek. However, there is documentation that the historical occupation of UTS in Bouquet Creek upstream of the project site has been extirpated due to introduction of low -plated threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus; San Marino Environmental Associates 2008, Richmond et al. 2014). Additionally, the portion of Bouquet Canyon Creek that occurs within the project site does not support suitable live-in habitat for stickleback due to its ephemeral nature. Downstream movement of stickleback is not likely due to channel alteration at the base of Bouquet Canyon (i.e., approximately 3.2 miles upstream of the project site; Richmond et al. 2015). Upstream movement of stickleback from the Santa Clara River to Bouquet Canyon Creek and into the project site is restricted as a result of the channelization of Bouquet Canyon Creek just downstream of the project site. Existing drop structures would prohibit stickleback movement upstream into the project site. Therefore, there is no potential of UTS occurring on the project site and there would be no direct impacts to this species or occupied habitat. Please see detailed discussion on pages 3.3-15 of the DEIR and pages 14-15 and 23 of the project's Biological Technical Report (BTR; HELIX 2019; see Appendix C to the project's DEIR). As discussed above, the project would not directly impact UTS or occupied habitat. The project was designed to avoid indirect impacts to UTS or occupied habitat downstream of the project site in the Santa Clara River. Please see discussion on pages 3.3-15 of the DEIR and page 23 of the BTR. Complete avoidance of Bouquet Canyon Creek was determined infeasible by the project proponent. In order to provide adequate conveyance of high flow events required to comply with Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and City of Santa Clarita (City) requirements, the engineer determined that Bouquet Canyon Creek would need to be replaced by a concrete -lined trapezoidal channel intended to convey the 100-year storm event through the project site, and into the existing maintained trapezoidal channel downstream. Although the project proponent designed the project to avoid the low -flow channel and an upland buffer, the entire extent of Bouquet Canyon Creek must be graded to construct the concrete trapezoidal channel. In addition, the Los Angeles County (County) Fire Department requires a 200-foot fuel modification zone from structures (Los Angeles County Fire Department 2020). This would require the development to setback a minimum of 200 feet from the outer limit of Bouquet Canyon Creek in order to avoid impacts to CDFW jurisdiction, resulting in a significant loss of developable acreage. The fuel modification activities would still be viewed as a permanent impact to CDFW jurisdiction due to the 12-4 need for modification and maintenance of vegetation fuel within jurisdictional "waters of the State." Implementation of the project requires impacts to a low function and value giant reed (Arundo donax) infested portion of the Bouquet Canyon Creek floodplain. Impacts will be adequately mitigated for as a permanent impact to CDFW jurisdictional waters pursuant to MM 3.3-3 in the DEIR and the pending Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for the project. The project proposes to minimize impacts to the Bouquet Canyon floodplain and return the mainstem channel of Bouquet Canyon Creek to pre -project topographic contours, which will reduce impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) required to qualify for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. With regard to CDFW jurisdiction, the re -contoured and revegetated portion of the Bouquet Canyon Creek mainstem will be fully and adequately mitigated for off -site. As such, the revegetation area is not a streambed mitigation area and is not subject to meet performance standards generally required for mitigation sites. However, CDFW will be provided a draft revegetation plan for review and comment during the Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement process for the project. The areas adjacent to the flowline of the creek will be revegetated with appropriate native species. An adjacent transitional buffer will be vegetated with native upland species. With regard to UTS, the project will not directly impact this species or suitable habitat for this species as detailed in Response 1 above. Moreover, the project was designed to avoid indirect impacts to potential populations of UTS downstream of the project site in the Santa Clara River. Therefore, no impacts to UTS would result from the project. Comment 5: Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends the City fully avoid all impacts to Bouquet Creek and unarmored threespine stickleback. Issue #7: Section 3.9.4 of the DEIR states "a new engineered channel would be constructed parallel to and on the southern side of the Bouquet Creek alignment within the project site". Issue #2: The Project also proposes enhance "flood control protection along Bouquet Creek, which would eliminate much of the existing floodplain conditions... Bouquet Creek would be channelized and designed to contain 100-year and other higher intensity storm flows." CDFW is concerned that this new landscape feature and creek channelization will permanently alter the existing drainage pattern of Bouquet Creek and its surrounding riparian area. Specific impacts: Direct loss of stream and riparian habitat directly affect water and habitat quality downstream. Additionally, piping and undergrounding streams cause changes in the hydrograph of the stream, altering geomorphic processes within the site and the potential listed species that depend on them. Why impact would occur. Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, building construction, paved surfaces, and extensive landscaping. All these activities have potential to impact the hydrograph and geomorphic processes on site as well as the wildlife that depend on these processes. Evidence impact would be significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern and geomorphologic processes of the Project site through the alteration or diversion of a stream. Absent specific mitigation, the Project could result in substantial erosion or siltation on -site or off -site of the Project. In addition, a review of The Nature Conservancy's Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Pulse Map and California Department of Water Resources' Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset, indicates the presence of coast live oak, a groundwater dependent ecosystem, on the Project site. Channelization of Bouquet Creek will have impacts on fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including GDEs and interconnected surface water habitats, that are impacted disproportionately by shallow groundwater trends. Therefore, channelization of Bouquet Creek may result in the removal of sensitive vegetation communities and listed species associated with them. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: CDFW recommends redesigning the Project to avoid impacts to the existing, natural extent of Bouquet Creek and its floodplain. This is important, especially given that this segment of drainage facilitates regional wildlife movement and provides an ephemeral source of water to terrestrial wildlife. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends the Project proponent actively implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollutants into ephemeral stream beds during Project activities. BMPs should be monitored and repaired, if necessary, to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. The Project proponent should prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within stream areas. All fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the Project site should be free of nonnative plant materials. Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh should be made of loose -weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other projects without welded weaves. Non -welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. Response 5: Revegetation with appropriate native species adjacent to the flowline of Bouquet Canyon Creek will provide cover for the temporarily impacted "avoided" drainage referred to by CDFW as the "new landscape feature." The mainstem channel `MI to be revegetated will retain its historic alignment and contours and will not be altered. Bouquet Canyon Creek in its current condition is dominated by non-native invasive giant reed habitat that provides a continuous source of infestation to downstream portions of Bouquet Canyon Creek and the Santa Clara River. Typical flows that dominate Bouquet Canyon Creek on -site will continue to be conveyed through the mainstem channel and will be routed to the flood control channel only during significant storm events. The routing of only low flows into the mainstem channel will protect the revegetated drainage area by limiting erosion during high storm events or from large releases from the Bouquet Reservoir Dam located approximately 1 1 miles northeast of the project site. The discharge leaving the site post -project will be consistent with existing conditions and ensuring that downstream existing drainage patterns will not be adversely affected. It is important to note that the project will continue to discharge into Bouquet Canyon Creek downstream. This portion of Bouquet Canyon Creek is a channelized and maintained trapezoidal channel until its confluence with the Santa Clara River located approximately four miles southwest of the project site. As such, neither on -site nor off -site (downstream) existing drainage patterns will be subject to alteration by the project. The on -site streambed and floodplain of Bouquet Canyon Creek is infested with invasive giant reed, which has significantly minimized the potential for high quality riparian habitat to occur on -site, while providing a continued source for further infestation downstream. The project will remove approximately 7.08 acres of giant reed stands which comprises over 70% of CDFW jurisdiction on the project site. Removal of giant reed will provide a direct benefit to downstream streambed habitats within Bouquet Canyon Creek and the Santa Clara River by removing the only source of giant reed infestation upstream of the previously channelized portion of Bouquet Canyon Creek. Following construction, the mainstem channel of Bouquet Canyon Creek will be returned to pre -project topographic contours and will be replanted with native species that are appropriate for the Santa Clarita region. A native upland transitional buffer will also be planted adjacent to the habitat. The removal of non-native giant reed stands and revegetation with native species will provide higher quality habitat for wildlife species and eliminate an upstream seed source of giant reed that would otherwise provide a continued source of infestation to downstream habitats. As described in the project's Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) provided as Appendix G to the DEIR, potential impacts to water quality due to pollutants from residential uses will be addressed through the use of infiltration basins where feasible and biofiltration basins where infiltration is not feasible due to low percolation rates in the underlying soil. The USMP is currently under review by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board who have deemed the application complete with no comments regarding the project USMP. Given the removal of giant reed and implementation of the project USMP, no adverse effects to habitat quality or water quality downstream are anticipated from implementation of the project. `MA The hydrology study prepared by the consulting civil engineer, Sikand, determined that water surface flows within the project reach would only contribute an additional 100 cubic feet per second, which represents approximately 0.5 percent of the overall flow within this reach of Bouquet Canyon Creek. Potential increases to surface flow rates due to project construction of impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, roofs, sidewalks, etc.) would be offset by constructing desilting basins upstream of the realigned Bouquet Canyon Road to help ensure that post -project discharge from site remains consistent with pre -project conditions. As discussed above, giant reed will be removed from the streambed and floodplain through implementation of the project. Following construction, the Bouquet Canyon Creek mainstem will be returned to pre -project topographic contours and replanted with appropriate native species. The revegetated streambed will provide higher quality habitat than the giant reed stands that currently dominate the streambed. Although the mainstem drainage will be returned to existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species, the loss of biological function and values within the entire extent of the CDFW jurisdictional streambed and relict floodplain on -site will be fully compensated through off -site mitigation consistent with the DEIR and the pending Section 1602 application. The mainstem channel will maintain its historic alignment and contours. Typical flows will continue through the drainage and only high flow storm events will be rerouted into the flood control channel. The flood control channel will protect the temporarily impacted on -site revegetated mainstem of Bouquet Canyon Creek from erosion and siltation that can occur during large flow events. Additionally, the revegetated streambed will provide higher quality habitat compared to the existing condition, which will protect the stream benches and banks from potential erosion during normal storm events. Per the project engineer, water surface flows within the project reach will only contribute an additional 100 cubic feet per second, which represents approximately 0.5 percent of the overall flow within this reach of Bouquet Canyon Creek. Potential increases to surface flow rates due to project construction of impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, roofs, sidewalks, etc.) would be offset by the construction of desilting basins upstream of the realigned Bouquet Canyon Road to ensure that post -project discharge from site remains consistent with pre -project conditions. Consequently, no adverse effects to the existing stream pattern and/or geomorphologic processes to the mainstream drainage or downstream channelized extent of Bouquet Canyon Creek are anticipated to be adversely affected by the project. Permanent impacts to the on -site Bouquet Canyon Creek floodplain are required to adequately convey the 100-year flood event pursuant to LACFCD and City -required guidelines for the project as determined by the project engineer. As documented in the BTR, coast live oak woodlands are not present on the project site. Only two coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees occur on the project site. These oaks are located in the eastern portion of the project site, adjacent to the Joseph Scott Detention Center. The coast live oak trees are not streambed-associated (see Figure 8 in the BTR). 12-8 The project proponent had expected to avoid a majority of the CDFW jurisdictional areas on -site during the early planning process. However, it was determined by the project engineer that the most feasible solution to comply with County and City flood conveyance requirements for the project is to construct a concrete trapezoidal channel through the site to adequately convey high storm flows. The construction of a trapezoidal channel rendered a site plan with significant avoidance of Bouquet Canyon Creek infeasible. In addition, complete avoidance of Bouquet Canyon Creek was determined infeasible since the County Fire Department requires a 200-foot fuel modification zone from structures (Los Angeles County Fire Department 2020). This would require the development to setback a minimum of 200 feet from the outer limit of Bouquet Canyon Creek in order to avoid fuel modification impacts within CDFW jurisdiction, which would not only significantly reduce the developable acreage of the project, but also require that the project provide compensatory mitigation for ongoing fuel modification and maintenance impacts within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. It should be noted that the project is proposing to return the mainstream channel of Bouquet Canyon Creek to pre -project topographic contours and revegetate the reestablished mainstem streambed with appropriate native species to include a native transitional buffer, while fully mitigating off -site for the mainstem drainage as a permanent impact to CDFW jurisdictional waters. As discussed on page 3.3-8 of the DER and pages 18-19 and 28 of the BTR, the project site was not identified as a regional wildlife movement corridor. Bouquet Canyon Creek directly downstream of the project site is a concrete channel and supports little to no vegetation. The lack of downstream habitat limits wildlife movement through this portion of Bouquet Canyon Creek, although local wildlife movement likely occurs. Once grading is complete, the mainstem channel of Bouquet Canyon Creek will be returned to pre -project topographic contours. Invasive giant reed will be removed from the creek and the area will be replanted with native species that are appropriate for the Santa Clarita region. The revegetated channel will provide higher quality habitat for wildlife since invasive and non-native species will be replaced with native species. The project will not remove an ephemeral water source for terrestrial wildlife since the creek will maintain its connection to upstream water sources. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize and avoid impacts to CDFW jurisdiction during and after construction will be addressed through compliance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the project's USMP. Compliance with the BMPs required as part of the General Construction Stormwater Permit and the project's USMP will help ensure that adequate erosion prevention measures are implemented to avoid the discharge of sediment and pollutants into downstream ephemeral streambeds. Minimization and avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: Construction -related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of drainages. No equipment maintenance will be done within or adjacent to the drainage. IFIVI • Mud, silt, spoil sites, raw cement, asphalt, or other pollutants from construction activities will not be placed within or adjacent to the drainage. • Open trenches or other excavated areas will be properly secured at the end of the day to avoid entrapment of animals, or an escape ramp will be provided. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project will be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food -related trash items will be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from site. • Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. • Exclusion fencing will be installed to demarcate the limits of disturbance. The exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of construction activities. • To the extent feasible, construction will be conducted outside of the nesting bird season (as required by MM 3.3-5). Comment 6: Comment #3: Impacts to Oak Woodland Issue #7: As stated in the DEIR Impact 3.3e, "The proposed project would remove 26 oak trees, subject 1 oak tree to major encroachment and 2 oak trees to minor encroachment". This removal or encroachment, "would require approximately 91 replacement oak trees," according to the DEIR. Issue #2: Impact 3.3e of the DEIR also states, "If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City." CDFW does not accept "equivalent monetary value" as a means of mitigation. Specific impacts: CDFW considers oak woodlands distinct biological communities, consisting of layers that include trees, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous understory vegetation. The DEIR only considers the value of the trees and does not appear to characterize the value of these unique individual communities in a biological setting. Removal or thinning of an understory or any one of these layers in oak woodland directly impacts the functions and values of the entire oak woodland. In addition, monetary means do not mitigate for the complete loss of this distinct biological community. Why impacts would occur. Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, building construction, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of oak woodlands. ipal Evidence impacts would be significant: The goal of the mitigation is to recreate functioning oak woodland of similar composition, structure, and function to the selected oak woodland that was impacted. The mitigation site should mimic the function, density, percent basal, canopy, and vegetation cover, as well as other measurable success criteria before the mitigation should be deemed sufficient. Mitigation measures should repair, rehabilitate, or restore the impacted environment. Monetary mitigation does not compensate for the significant impact by replacing or providing substitute resources/environments, for such unique, biologically valuable vegetation communities that, if not mitigated in kind, will be lost forever. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: If avoidance is not possible, impacts to the oak woodland should be mitigated through habitat restoration or conservation. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation should include preparation of a separate restoration plan, to be approved by USFWS and CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan should include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should success criteria not be met, long-term management and maintenance goals; and, a funding mechanism to assure for in perpetuity management and reporting. Areas proposed as mitigation should have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965- 65968) . Recommendation #2: Please note, in 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & Game Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance and association -based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), found online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/. To determine the rarity ranking and mitigation ratios of vegetation communities on the Project site, the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. Response 6: Mitigation for project impacts to oak (Quercus spp.) trees is intended to satisfy requirements per the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, which requires replacement trees to be planted on -site, donation of trees to the City, or an equivalent monetary value to be paid to the City (City 2013). As stated above, proposed mitigation for impacts to oak trees on the project site is consistent with requirements of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Additionally, no oak woodlands or sensitive oak communities were mapped on the project site. The majority of oaks observed on the project site were shrubs, including scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) and Tucker oak (Quercus john-tuckeri). Areas dominated by these species were mapped as scrub oak chaparral (MCV scrub oak chaparral; CaCode 37.407.02) and southern north slope chaparral (MCV Tucker oak Was chaparral; CaCode 37.418.04), respectively (see Figure 5 of the BTR). Neither of these communities are designated by CDFW as sensitive natural communities, and therefore impacts to these communities do not warrant mitigation pursuant to CDFW (CDFW 2019). MCV alliance/association community names as defined by Sawyer et al. 2009 are provided in Table 2 of the BTR. Comment 7: Vegetation Community Classification Issue: Table 3 in the BTR identifies Impacts to Vegetation Communities and the DER states, "plant communities were classified in accordance with Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (1996), with additional vegetation community information taken from the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (MCV; Sawyer, et al. 2008). Specific impact: CDFW considers grading a vegetation community a permanent impact unless mitigation is proposed that includes specific criteria that ensure the exact vegetation community is recreated, with consideration for the temporal loss of the habitat as well as defined success criteria and weed management. Revegetation or acquisition/preservation would be a mitigation measure proposed to offset impacts to a CDFW sensitive vegetation community. Why impact would occur. Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, road construction, utilities construction, road maintenance, fuel modification, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of sensitive vegetation communities. If sensitive areas are not correctly identified, CDFW is unable to accurately determine proper mitigation measures for that vegetation community. CDFW considers vegetation communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S 1, S2, S3 and some S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6 to 20 occurrences, and S 1 has less than 6 occurrences. The Project may have direct or indirect effects to these sensitive vegetation communities. Any revegetation effort should represent the actual vegetation community being impacted. Vegetation communities are named using alliances or associations. An example is California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer, et al., 2008) separates the diagnostic species for the California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance into trans and cis montane stands. The species assemblages for this one alliance change over the length of this project. CDFW is concerned spreading a generic seed mix that is not truly representative of the unique plant community alliances present will impact the existing habitat, introduce species that don't occur there, and ultimately change the structure of the vegetation community. Additionally, plants that aren't found in an area may not be suited to survive there, raising the rate of failure. ipam Evidence impact would be significant. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these sensitive communities will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect. This, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Impacts to all sensitive communities should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Using non -conforming modifications to MCV alliances may misidentify rare or sensitive vegetation communities, resulting in impacts to the species. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: Vegetation Communities that do not conform to existing MCV- defined alliances might be considered rare. All data and proposed modification to existing or new alliances should be submitted to CDFW for scientific review. If a project's dominant vegetation does not fit into one of the non-native alliances or provisional alliances, then a description (scientific, including information used to determine membership for this new alliance) should be included to defend this conclusion. This process is imperative to maintain a rigorous scientific vetting process and defensible classification system. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends that updated botanical surveys utilizing MCV-defined alliances be conducted to inform impact assessments, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the DEIR. Focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on -site should be disclosed in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist should "conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting." CEQA documentation should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on -site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project -related direct and indirect impacts. Recommendation #3: See Recommendation #2 in Comment #2 Response 7: No seed mixes will be spread for mitigation purposes. The project will revegetate the mainstem channel of Bouquet Canyon Creek with appropriate native species as well as a transitional buffer with native upland species. Plant palettes will consist of species native to the Santa Clarita area and will be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation as part of the pending Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement process for the project. Only native plants will be used for project landscaping within the reestablished mainstem of Bouquet Canyon Creek on -site. Please note that this revegetation effort is not being implemented as mitigation for streambed impacts. Bouquet Canyon Creek will be returned to pre- iPaK! project topographic contours and revegetated to remain under the impact threshold for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit. As discussed on pages 3.3-17 and 3.3-20 of the DEIR and page 26 of the BTR, two sensitive communities pursuant to CDFW were identified: elderberry savanna and southern willow scrub/giant reed stand (CDFW 2019). Both communities are extremely disturbed. The sensitive natural community designation is generally reserved for high - quality habitats, such as those that lack invasive species, do not show signs of human - caused disturbance, and show signs of reproduction (i.e., sprouts and seedlings present). No mitigation is proposed for impacts to blue elderberry stands since is the community is small and isolated from other native habitat, with the exception of a small patch of big sagebrush scrub. The understory is dominated by dense non-native short - pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), which is likely due to historic disturbance from ranching activities, fuel modification over the years, and its proximity to Bouquet Canyon Road. No sprouts or seedlings were noted during field surveys. Impacts to red willow thickets/giant reed breaks would be mitigated through compensatory mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. As required by MM 3.3-3, permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction for southern willow scrub/giant reed stand will be mitigated through on -site or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of CDFW jurisdictional streambed at ratio of no less than 1:1. A mitigation ratio of no less than 1:1 would adequately mitigate for impacts to this community since the mitigation would provide a higher quality resource than the community proposed for impacts. Additionally, the project would remove an upstream seed source of giant reed that would otherwise provide a continued source of infestation to downstream habitats. Plant communities were defined using existing MCV-defined alliances (see Table 2 in the BTR). MCV-defined alliances were used during vegetation mapping and are provided in Table 2 of the BTR. Therefore, updated botanical surveys are not necessary. Rare plant survey methods are discussed in detail on page 3 of the BTR and results are provided on pages 3.3-6 and 3.3-7 of the DEIR and pages 13-14 of the BTR. A thorough discussion on presence/absence of sensitive plants on -site is provided on pages 3.3-6 and 3.3-7 of the DEIR, pages 13-14 of the BTR, and Appendix I to the BTR. As discussed above and on page 26 of the BTR, two sensitive communities pursuant to CDFW were identified: elderberry savanna and southern willow scrub/giant reed stand (CDFW 2019). Both communities are extremely disturbed. No mitigation is proposed for impacts to blue elderberry stands due the low quality of the habitat. Impacts to red willow thickets/giant reed breaks would be mitigated through compensatory mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. Comment 8: Mitigation for slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) Issue #1: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "Prior to construction, a mitigation plan shall be developed that describes methods to mitigate for impacts to slender mariposa lily". Providing a mitigation plan with methods of maintenance, monitoring, performance ME standards, and success criteria in the future is considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. Issue #2: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR describes the mitigation ratio as 1: 1. It is unclear if the ratio is designated for individual plants or whether that includes the acreage on which they are located. In addition, 1:1 is insufficient replacement for this rare plant species. Issue #3: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "The mitigation plan shall include a description of the mitigation site... ". CDFW does not support transplantation of rare plants, into areas they currently do not occur, as a mitigation strategy. Issue #4: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "seeds shall be obtained from a native plant nursery if available." CDFW is not aware of any nursery that has slender mariposa lily bulbs. Issue #5: CDFW does not accept payment into an in -lieu fee program as a viable mitigation option. Specific impacts: Project grading and fuel modification associated with the residential development would impact approximately 142 slender mariposa lilies. Construction of the new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road would impact approximately 320 slender mariposa lilies. CDFW, in general, does not recommend transplantation of rare plants, in particular bulbiferous species like the slender mariposa lily, as a mitigation/minimization measure to reduce adverse effects from the project because successful implementation of translocation is rare with minimal documented success. CDFW defines success as long-term, self-sustaining population with a positive overall population trend, demonstrated fertile seed set, and demonstrated recruitment. Even if transplantation is initially successful, they typically fail to persist over time. To ensure the conservation of sensitive plant species, transplantation should be undertaken as a last resort. Why impacts would occur. CEQA Guidelines § 15070 and § 15071 require the document to analyze if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as well as review if the Project will `avoid the effect or mitigate to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur'. Relying on future surveys, the preparation of future management plans, or mitigating by obtaining permits from CDFW are considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. In order to analyze if a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Project related impacts, including survey results for species that occur in the Project footprint need to be disclosed during the public comment period. This information is necessary to allow CDFW to comment on alternatives to avoid impacts, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity). These impacts would continue to be significant because MM 3.3-1 will not result in adequate avoidance or successful mitigation for the unavoidable direct, indirect and temporal losses including the uncertainties and often failures of creation or restoration practices for special status plants using transplanting of species. Wa Evidence impacts would be significant: Creation or restoration using the transplanting of plant species should be considered experimental in nature and not be viewed as a mitigation measure to mitigate for slender mariposa lily and other CNPS special status plants below a significant level under CEQA. In addition, because transplantation projects have a poor success rate, and demonstrate a downward trend of survival over time (GodeFroid, S., et al., 2010). Studies show success of transplantation projects within the 10 to 15 percent range, with an optimistic outcome of 50 percent survival maintained over 5 years (or thereafter, 50% survival maintained for 1 year). In addition, the DEIR does not address the cumulative loss of slender mariposa lily in Los Angeles County adequately. A description of the remaining acreage compared to historical range, connectivity of remaining slender mariposa lily and how the loss of 320 individuals of slender mariposa lily in this location will affect the local region should be discussed in more detail and figures. Based upon MM 3.3-1, the Project would continue to result in 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 CDFW or USFWS. Absent adequate mitigation, the ecosystem function and contribution to genetic biological diversity of slender mariposa lily and other CNPS special status plants in conjunction with their contribution to breeding, feeding and cover habitat for wildlife will be compromised. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: CDFW recommends as a better mitigation strategy. The preservation of areas where slender mariposa lily is located on site or an existing, similarly sized, population of slender mariposa lily in perpetuity at another location. This would be at an acreage of no less than 3 acres preservation of occupied habitat for every 1 acre of impact to occupied habitat. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends the DEIR include defined mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to sensitive plants. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For any impacts that have been adequately demonstrated to be unavoidable, CDFW recommends that the City should require a scientifically rigorous monitoring and management program as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (MMRP) that would include adaptive management strategies (Public Resources Code 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through occupied habitat acquisition and preservation in perpetuity may be appropriate. Mitigation Measure #3: CDFW recommends that all open space preservation/mitigation land be protected in perpetuity with minimal human intrusion by recording and executing a perpetual conservation easement in favor of an approved agent dedicated to conserving biological resources. CDFW recommends all open space or habitat lands considered for mitigation of environmental impact under CEQA be ipar owned and managed by an entity with experience in managing habitat and be placed under a conservation easement. CDFW has encountered problems with using portions of privately owned lots as open space habitat mitigation under CEQA. Homeowners may grade and remove vegetation on their land and there is little legal recourse to remedy this loss under CEQA. The better option is to place ownership of any open space or habitat land considered as avoidance under CEQA with a conservancy or other land management company to allow for legal remedies should trespass and clearing/damage occur. A management and monitoring plan, including a funding commitment, should be developed for any conserved land, and implemented in perpetuity to protect existing biological functions and values. Permeable wildlife fencing should be erected around any conserved land to restrict incompatible land uses and signage posted and maintained at conspicuous locations communicating these restrictions to the public. Mitigation Measure #4: For any land that is proposed for preservation and/or restoration, the CEQA document should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity. The objective should be to offset the project -induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, invasive plant removal, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non -wasting endowment should be set aside to provide for long-term management of open space preservation/mitigation lands. Response 8: Mitigation was not deferred as MM 3.3-1 in the DEIR outlines how the project will mitigate for impacts to slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) at a 1:1 ratio. The ratio is intended to provide flexibility depending on which proposed mitigation strategy is determined the most feasible. The ratio may be at a 1:1 replacement ratio for impacted individuals, 1:1 acreage ratio for preserving occupied habitat, or a combination. As noted below, the project proponent is currently evaluating opportunities to implement mitigation for slender mariposa lily to comply with MM 3.3-1. Preservation of existing occupied habitat is the preferred mitigation option, which would not require a mitigation plan. If enhancement and/or bulb transplantation is determined to be the most feasible mitigation option, CDFW will have the opportunity to review, comment, and approve the mitigation plan prior to implementation. It is acknowledged that there could be some temporal loss due to a lag time between when impacts occur and mitigation is implemented. Therefore, the following opportunities are being evaluated by the project proponent in compliance with the DEIR measure in light of CDFW's comments: 1. Preservation of existing on -site or off -site habitat occupied by slender mariposa lily at an acreage ratio of 2:1. ipa�l 2. Enhancement of existing on -site or off -site habitat occupied by slender mariposa lily at an acreage ratio of 1:5:1. 3. Transplantation of slender mariposa lily bulbs at a 1:1 ratio in addition to either (a) preservation of on -site or off -site habitat occupied by slender mariposa lily at an acreage ratio of 0.5:1 or (b) enhancement of on -site or off -site habitat occupied by slender mariposa lily at an acreage ratio of 0.25:1. 4. Transplantation of slender mariposa lily bulbs at a 1.5:1 ratio. Preservation of habitat currently occupied by slender mariposa lily is the preferred mitigation option. The project proponent is actively assessing off -site properties that may be suitable for preservation and/or transplantation. The mitigation proposed above will be dependent on suitable land that is available. The mitigation outlined above remains consistent with MM 3.3-1 as provided in the project's DER but has been expanded to provide additional details based on ongoing analysis by the project proponent of on -site and off -site mitigation opportunities. It is noted that CDFW does not support transplantation of rare plants into areas they currently do not occur in, as a mitigation strategy. As noted above by CDFW, preservation of habitat currently occupied by slender mariposa lily is the preferred mitigation option. The project proponent is actively looking for off -site properties that may be suitable for preservation and/or transplantation. It is noted that CDFW is not aware of any nursery that has slender mariposa lily bulbs. This option was included in MM 3.3-1 to provide flexibility in the event a nursery that carries bulbs was identified. There are currently no known in -lieu fee programs for slender mariposa lilies and no such program appears to be in planning stages. Given these circumstances and CDFW's indication that they will not accept in -lieu fee mitigation, no in -lieu fee credits will be acquired as mitigation for slender mariposa lily. The language of MM 3.3-1 has been revised to remove the reference to in -lieu fee mitigation. Mitigation has not been deferred. MM 3.3-1 outlines what steps will be taken to mitigate impacts to slender mariposa lily to less than significant. As stated in MM 3.3-1, impacts to slender mariposa lily will be offset by mitigation at a ratio of 1:1. The mitigation will include either transplantation of lilies to an appropriate on -site or off -site mitigation area and/or preservation of existing occupied land. A mitigation plan would be provided to CDFW for review, comment, and approval. The mitigation plan would require maintenance and monitoring of the receptor site for a minimum of five years and specific success criteria would need to be met before the mitigation is considered successful. See discussion above regarding additional mitigation details currently being analyzed by the project proponent. The project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact involving loss of this species since the proposed mitigation would ensure that a viable population of a War-] comparable number of individuals would be preserved/enhanced/established, thus fully offsetting the potential loss of plants within the project site. The project does not propose or anticipate a requirement to preserve open space or to mitigate for any biological resources on -site, with the exception of slender mariposa lily. On -site and/or off -site mitigation for impacts to slender mariposa lily would be preserved in perpetuity via a legal preservation mechanism such as a deed restriction or conservation easement, to be identified in the mitigation plan to be provided to CDFW for review, comment and approval. Streambed impacts are anticipated to be mitigated through purchase of off -site streambed mitigation credits. Comment 9: Impacts to nesting birds Issue: The BTR indicates that coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a California Species of Special Concern and an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species, has the possibility of occurring on site. In addition, the BTR and a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates an occurrence of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a California Species of Special Concern, within a mile and a quarter of the Project site. The occurrence of oak woodland and other vegetation communities indicate the potential for nesting within and around the Project vicinity. Specific impacts: Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in trees directly adjacent to the Project boundary. The Project could also lead to the loss of foraging habitat for sensitive bird species. Why impact would occur. Impacts to nesting birds could result from ground disturbing activities. Project disturbance activities could result in mortality or injury to nestlings, as well temporary or long-term loss of suitable foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Evidence impact would be significant: The loss of occupied habitat or reductions in the number of rare bird species, either directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, would constitute a significant impact absent appropriate mitigation. Furthermore, nests of all native bird species are protected understate laws and regulations, including Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: To protect nesting birds that may occur on site or adjacent to the Project boundary, CDFW recommends that no construction should occur from February 15 (January 1 for raptors) through August31. Mitigation Measure #2: If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the construction iPa site. The nesting bird surveys should be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. CDFW recommends the Lead Agency require surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of any Project -related activity likely to impact raptors and migratory songbirds, for the entire Project site. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days during the breeding season, repeat the surveys. If nesting raptors and migratory songbirds are identified, CDFW recommends the following minimum no - disturbance buffers be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non -listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active listed bird nests. These buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. These buffers should be increased if needed to protect the nesting birds. Response 9: Based on biological surveys conducted at the project site, Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; CAGN) is presumed absent based on negative survey findings (see CAGN survey report included as Appendix E to the BTR). Please note that oak woodlands were not mapped on the project site (see Response 6 for further explanation). MM 3.3-5 was included in the DEIR to avoid impacts to nesting birds, which requires similar measures to be implemented as those proposed by CDFW in this comment. Comment 10: Impacts to Bat Species, including California Species of Special Concern Issue: The Project includes activities that will result in the removal of trees and vegetation that may provide habitat for bats. In addition, Appendix J (Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur) in the BTR, identifies Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a California Species of Special Concern, as possible likelihood to occur on site. Specific impacts: Project activities include the removal of trees, vegetation, and/or structures that may provide foraging habitat and therefore has the potential for the direct loss of bats. Why impacts would occur. The removal of vegetation and trees will potentially result in the loss of foraging habitat for bats. Evidence impacts would be significant: Bats are considered non -game mammals and are afforded protection by state law from take and/or harassment, (Fish & G. Code, § 4150, Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Although the Townsend's big -eared bat is the species in question, it is important to remember that there are many bat species, for example the western yellow bat, that can be found year-round in urban areas throughout the south coast region (Miner & Stokes, 2005). Several bat species are considered California Species of Special Concern and meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of California Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). I &A In addition, "Encroachment of urban development and agriculture into areas of native vegetation likely alters the composition and abundance of insect prey in an area and may affect the ability of Townsend's big -eared bat to find adequate prey. Encroachment may also disturb roosts by increasing the rate of human visitation and increasing predation pressure from cats and other generalist predators associated with human settlement" (Gruver, J.C., 2006). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends bat surveys be conducted by a qualified bat specialist to determine baseline conditions within the Project and within a 500-foot buffer. In addition, an analysis of the potential significant effects of the proposed Project on the species (CEQA Guidelines § 15125). CDFW recommends the DEIR include the use of acoustic recognition technology to maximize detection of bat species to minimize impacts to sensitive bat species. The DEIR should document the presence of any bats and include species specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Response 10: Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) was the only sensitive bat species recorded on CNDDB within the UGSGS Mint Canyon quadrangle search (CDFW 2018). The status of this species was recently changed from a State Candidate Threatened species to a Species of Special Concern. As discussed on page 3.3-16 of the DEIR and page 24 of the BTR, the project site does not support preferred roosting habitat (i.e., caves, cliffs, rock ledges) and this species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance (Western Working Bat Group 2005). Townsend's big -eared bat species preferred foraging habitat is along the edges of streams and wooded habitat. The project site supports limited wooded habitat and is primarily vegetated with non- native grass and forb species as well as chaparral and coastal sage scrub shrubs. Open space with potential suitable habitat is located to the north and east of the project site, and loss of foraging habitat on the project site would not substantially reduce the foraging habitat of this species or cause this species to drop below self-sustaining levels. Additionally, the habitat on the project site will be enhanced by removing dense, invasive giant reed stands and the mainstream channel will be revegetated with appropriate native species. The revegetation within and adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Creek would provide higher quality foraging habitat for this species. Bat surveys are not warranted since the project will not significantly impact roosting or potentially suitable foraging habitat for Townsend's big -eared bat. Comment 11: Impacts to California Species of Special Concern Issue: One mammal species, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) is identified in Appendix J of the BTR (Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur) as having high possibility to occur onsite. In addition, four reptile species with a possible to likely potential to occur on site from Appendix J of the BTR include the California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans W&A occidentalis), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). Specific impact: Project ground disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat. Why impact would occur. Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of Special Status reptile and mammal species. Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for state and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to California Species of Special Concern which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These Species of Special Concern meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency, (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure # 1: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, qualified biologists familiar with the reptile and mammal species behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. Surveys should be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. California legless lizard are active yearround in the mornings and evenings, California glossy snake are nocturnal and active February to November (peaking in May); coastal whiptail are diurnal (activity peaking in late morning) and active from March to October, coast horned lizard are active February to November and are diurnal in the spring and crepuscular in summer and fall (Thomson, R.C. et al., 2016). Jackrabbits have yearlong diurnal and crepuscular activity (Zeiner, D.C. et al., 1988-1990). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW for review 2 weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. Mitigation Measure #2: To further avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on -site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project -related grading activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the designated entity should obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. I &A Response 11: CEQA Guidelines § 15065 states that a significant effect is when the project has the potential to "substantially 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; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory." The project site supports suitable habitat for Species of Special Concern, including California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), California legless lizard (Anniella sp.), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona), and Townsend's big -eared bat (see discussion above regarding this species). Please see detailed discussion of potential for these species to occur on the project site on pages 3.3-15 and 3.3-16 of the DEIR, pages 14-16 of the BTR, and Appendix J to the BTR. Numerous field surveys have been conducted over the last three years on the project site at different times of the year (June 17, 2017; July 6, 2017; March 24, 2018; March 27, 2018; April 7, 2018; April 13, 2018; April 4, 2018; April 21, 2018; May 5, 2018; May 12, 2018; May 15, 2018; June 8, 2018; June 26, 2018; December 19, 2018; December 20, 2018; May 9, 2019; October 9, 2019). Animals species observed during each site visit were recorded and are listed as Attachment B to the BTR. None of these species have been observed during any of the field surveys conducted on the project site. Based on observations made during site visits, these species are either absent or scarce throughout the project site. Open space with potentially suitable habitat for these species occurs to the north and east of the project site. If present at the time of construction, nesting loggerhead shrike would be protected through implementation of MM 3.3-5. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact these species since the project would not substantially reduce the habitat for these species, cause populations of these species to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of these species. Since Species of Special Concern have not been documented on the project site over last three years, the project would not result in significant impacts to those species and no further surveys or mitigation is warranted. Implementation of MM 3.3-5 would protect nesting migratory birds during project construction. Comment 12: The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project 12-23 approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5, Fish & G. Code, § 71 1.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Response 12: Comment noted. Payment of CDFW fees will be made upon filing of the Notice of Determination. Comment 13: CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party MM-BIO-1-impacts CDFW recommends the City Prior to City of Santa Clarita to unarmored fully avoid all impacts to Construction Project Proponent threespine Bouquet Creek and unarmored stickleback threespine stickleback. MM-BIO-2-Impacts The Project will be designed to Prior to City of Santa Clarita to Bouquet Creek avoid impacts to the existing, Construction Project Proponent natural extent of Bouquet Creek and its floodplain. This is important, especially given that this segment of drainage facilitates regional wildlife movement and provides an ephemeral source of water to terrestrial wildlife. MM-BIO-3-Impacts Project proponent shall actively Prior to City of Santa Clarita to Bouquet Creek implement Best Management Construction Project Proponent Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollutants into ephemeral stream beds during Project activities. BMPs shall be monitored and repaired, if necessary, to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. The Project proponent shall prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within stream areas. All fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the Project site shall be free of nonnative plant materials. Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh shall be made of loose -weave mesh that is not 12-24 fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other projects without welded weaves. Nonwelded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. MM-BIO-4-Oak If avoidance is not possible, Prior to City of Santa Clarita woodland impacts to the oak woodland Construction Project Proponent shall be mitigated through habitat restoration or conservation. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation shall include preparation of a separate restoration plan, to be approved by USFWS and CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan shall include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions shall success criteria not be met, long-term management and maintenance goals; and, a funding mechanism to assure for in perpetuity management and reporting. Areas proposed as mitigation shall have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968). MM-BIO-5- Vegetation Communities that Prior to City of Santa Clarita Vegetation do not conform to existing construction Project Proponent Communities MCV-defined alliances might be considered rare. All data and proposed modification to existing or new alliances shall be submitted to CDFW for scientific review. If a project's dominant vegetation does not fit into one of the non-native alliances or provisional alliances, then a description (scientific, including information used to determine membership IM for this new alliance) shall be included to defend this conclusion. This process is imperative to maintain a rigorous scientific vetting process and defensible classification system. MM-BIO-6- Botanical surveys utilizing MCV- During City of Santa Clarita Vegetation defined alliances shall be Construction Project Proponent Communities conducted to inform impact assessments, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the DEIR. Focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on -site shall be disclosed in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist shall "conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting." CEQA documentation shall provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on -site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project - related direct and indirect impacts. MM-BIO-7-slender Areas where slender mariposa Prior to City of Santa Clarita mariposa lily lily is located on site shall be Construction Project Proponent preserved or an existing, similarly sized population of slender mariposa lily shall be preserved in perpetuity at another location, at an acreage of no less than 3 acres preservation of occupied habitat for every 1 acre of impact to occupied habitat. MM-BIO-B-slender The DER shall include defined Prior to City of Santa Clarita mariposa lily mitigation measures for adverse Construction Project Proponent Project -related impacts to sensitive plants. Mitigation measures shall emphasize I& avoidance and reduction of Project impacts. For any impacts that have been adequately demonstrated to be unavoidable, The City shall require a scientifically rigorous monitoring and management program as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (MMRP) that would include adaptive management strategies (Public Resources Code 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through occupied habitat acquisition and preservation in perpetuity may be appropriate. MM-BIO-9-S►ender All open space Prior to City of Santa Clarita mariposa ►i1y preservation/mitigation land be Construction Project Proponent protected in perpetuity with minimal human intrusion by recording and executing a perpetual conservation easement in favor of an approved agent dedicated to conserving biological resources. All open space or habitat lands considered for mitigation of environmental impact under CEQA be owned and managed by an entity with experience in managing habitat and be placed under a conservation easement. CDFW has encountered problems with using portions of privately owned lots as open space habitat mitigation under CEQA. Homeowners may grade and remove vegetation on their land and there is little legal recourse to remedy this loss under CEQA. The better option is to place ownership of any open space or habitat land 12-27 considered as avoidance under CEQA with a conservancy or other land management company to allow for legal remedies shall trespass and clearing/damage occur. A management and monitoring plan, including a funding commitment, shall be developed for any conserved land, and implemented in perpetuity to protect existing biological functions and values. Permeable wildlife fencing shall be erected around any conserved land to restrict incompatible land uses and signage posted and maintained at conspicuous locations communicating these restrictions to the public. MM-BIO-10- For any land that is proposed Prior to City of Santa Clarita slender mariposa for preservation and/or Construction Project Proponent lily restoration, the CEQA document shall include measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity. The objective shall be to offset the Project -induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that shall be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, invasive plant removal, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non - wasting MM-BIO-I I- To protect nesting birds that Prior to City of Santa Clarita Nesting Birds may occur on site or adjacent Construction Project Proponent to the project boundary, no construction shall occur from February 15 (January I for raptors) through August 31. MM-BIO-12- If avoidance is not feasible, a Prior to City of Santa Clarita Nesting Birds qualified biologist shall Construction Project Proponent complete a survey for nesting 12-28 bird activity within a 500- foot radius of the construction site. The nesting bird surveys shall be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. CDFW recommends the Lead Agency require surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of any Project -related activity likely to impact raptors and migratory songbirds, for the entire Project site. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days during the breeding season, repeat the surveys. If nesting raptors and migratory songbirds are identified, the following minimum no -disturbance buffers be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non -listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active listed bird nests. These buffers shall be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. These buffers shall be increased if needed to protect the nesting birds. MM-BIO-13 Bat Bat surveys shall be conducted Prior to City of Santa Clarita Species by a qualified bat specialist to Construction Project Proponent determine baseline conditions within the Project and within a 500-foot buffer and analyze the potential significant effects of the proposed Project on the species (CEQA Guidelines § 15125). The DER will include the use of acoustic recognition technology to maximize detection of bat species to M4*11 minimize impacts to sensitive bat species. The DER shall document the presence of any bats and include species specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. MM-BIO-14- Due to potentially suitable Prior to City of Santa Clarita Species of Special habitat within the Project site, Construction Project Proponent Concern prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, qualified biologists familiar with the reptile and mammal species behavior and life history shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. Surveys shall be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. California legless lizard are active year-round in the mornings and evenings; California glossy snake are nocturnal and active February to November (peaking in May); coastal whiptail are diurnal (activity peaking in late morning) and active from March to October, coast horned lizard are active February to November and are diurnal in the spring and crepuscular in summer and fall (Thomson, R.C. et al., 2016). Jackrabbits have yearlong diurnal and crepuscular activity. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW for review 2 weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. MM-BIO-15 Out of To further avoid direct mortality, Prior to City of Santa Clarita Harm's Way a qualified biological monitor Construction Project Proponent approved by CDFW be on -site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project - related grading activities. It shall Wait be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the designated entity shall obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. Response 13: The comment and the suggestions for language to be included in the Project's Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program are noted and will be provided to the City Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The City will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to identify mitigation actions/timing, mitigation timing, and responsible entities for the mitigation and monitoring actions. This will be based on the mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR and any revisions or additions thereto that may occur prior to City Council action to certify the Final EIR. iml DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 iirn iirn e ii -t III etteir Nwirnbeir State of California - Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 riillc lliif ....ca::..ggy. June 10, 2020 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 II.....II„IN l[ ,1N„ santa....cllairita,coni Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), SCH #2018121009, Los Angeles County Dear Mr. Nguyen: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the above -referenced Bouquet Canyon Project (Project). The DEIR's supporting documentation includes a Biological Technical Report (BTR). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW's Role CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", as defined by state law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state -listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.) authorization as provided by the applicable Fish and Game Code will be required. iMN DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 2 of 21 June 10, 2020 Project Description and Summary Objective: The proposed Project will include the development of 375 homes in five distinct neighborhoods. The development of the site will include extensive alterations to the existing landscape and topography, with substantial site improvements to support a residential community. A major element is the reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain. Other improvements include internal streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, electrical and natural gas infrastructure. This includes off -site connections to existing distribution mains for water, sewer, energy and telecommunications services, private recreation areas, and public parkland and trails. An additional facet of the Project is the realignment of a segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. It would involve abandoning a portion of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road between Hob Avenue and Pam Court and constructing a new segment starting 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road and extending to 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane. The new portion of Bouquet Canyon Road would be a four -lane roadway with bicycle lanes and parkways on both sides. Location: The Project site is approximately 67.6 acres of undeveloped land located in the Saugus area of the City of Santa Clarita, approximately 0.2 miles to the north of the junction of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road. The site is currently undeveloped and is covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills on the west, and Bouquet Creek, which flows along the northern portion of the site from east to west. Comments and Recommendations CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Santa Clarita (City) in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science -based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). Comment #1: Impacts to Unarmored Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) Issue: CDFW is concerned that the Project is impacting Bouquet Creek, which is occupied by unarmored threespine stickleback. According to CNDDB, there are numerous historical records of unarmored threespine stickleback, a state fully protected species, in Bouquet Creek. Except as provided in the Fish and Game Code (e.g., for necessary scientific research), take of any fully protected species is prohibited and cannot be authorized by CDFW (Fish and Game Code § 5515 and § 3511). "Take" is defined in Section 86 of Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CDFW cannot authorize the take of any fully protected species as defined by State law. State fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for its take except for collecting those species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for protection of livestock (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515). CDFW has advised the Permittee that take of any species designated as fully protected under the Fish and Game Code is prohibited. CDFW recognizes that certain fully 51 12-33 DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 3 of 21 June 10, 2020 protected species are documented to occur on, or in, the vicinity of the project area, or that such species have some potential to occur on, or in, the vicinity of the project area, due to the presence of suitable habitat. Specific impacts: The Project may result in the loss of streams, associated watershed function, and biological diversity that could directly or indirectly impact the local population of unarmored threespine stickleback. Why impacts would occur: Unarmored threespine stickleback is a small, freshwater fish inhabiting slow -moving reaches or quiet -water microhabitats of streams and rivers. Unarmored threespine stickleback feed primarily on benthic insects, small crustaceans, and snails, and to a lesser degree on flatworms, nematodes, and terrestrial insects. Unarmored threespine stickleback typically prefer a lower stream gradient, slower water velocity, broader channel, and lack of native or invasive aquatic predators. Juveniles and sub -adults also tend to be found in the protection of vegetation, in slow moving or standing water. Adults are found in all areas of the stream. They tend to gather in areas of slower moving or standing water. In places where water is moving rapidly, they tend to be found behind obstructions or at the edge of the stream, especially under the edge of algal mats (Sasaki, 1977). Ground disturbing activities from grading and filling, water diversions and dewatering would physically remove or otherwise alter existing streams or their function and associated riparian habitat on the Project site. Downstream and upstream areas and associated biological resources beyond the Project development footprint may also be impacted by Project related releases of sediment and altered watershed effects resulting from Project activities. Water diversions can cause changes in flow regimes of streams. Thus, diversions can impact unarmored threespine stickleback by: • Reducing the transport of fine sediment downstream causing streams to become graded or buried (Poff et al., 1997, Bauer et al., 2015); • Disconnecting channels from still or slow -moving backwaters that are used by UTS, leading to reductions in reproduction and recruitment (Junk et al., 1989, Sparks, 1995, Poff et al., 1997); • Wash -out and stranding of fish (Cushman, 1985); • Changing benthic food sources; • Altering habitat cover and algae; • Dewatering small streams used by unarmored threespine stickleback; and • Increasing water temperatures of streams that can slow growth, increase predation risk, and increase susceptibility to disease (Moore and Townsend, 1998, Marine and Cech, Jr., 2004). Evidence impacts would be significant: Unarmored threespine stickleback is an endangered species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) and CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and a Fully Protected species (Fish & G. Code § 5515). Therefore, this species qualifies as an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380. Unarmored threespine stickleback, once widespread in streams in southern California, are now only found in the upper Santa Clara River and its tributaries. The species is threatened by loss 12 12-34 DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 4 of 21 June 10, 2020 and alteration of their habitat through water diversions, development, dams, and pollution as well as introduction of invasive species that predate or compete with unarmored threespine stickleback (USFWS, 2009). Based on the foregoing, Project impacts resulting from channelizing a portion of Bouquet Creek would potentially reduce the range of unarmored threespine stickleback. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends the City fully avoid all impacts to Bouquet Creek and unarmored threespine stickleback. Comment #2: Impacts to Bouquet Creek Issue #1: Section 3.9.4 of the DEIR states "a new engineered channel would be constructed parallel to and on the southern side of the Bouquet Creek alignment within the project site". Issue #2: The Project also proposes enhance "flood control protection along Bouquet Creek, which would eliminate much of the existing floodplain conditions... Bouquet Creek would be channelized and designed to contain 100-year and other higher intensity storm flows." CDFW is concerned that this new landscape feature and creek channelization will permanently alter the existing drainage pattern of Bouquet Creek and its surrounding riparian area. Specific impacts: Direct loss of stream and riparian habitat directly affect water and habitat quality downstream. Additionally, piping and undergrounding streams cause changes in the hydrograph of the stream, altering geomorphic processes within the site and the potential listed species that depend on them. Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, building construction, paved surfaces, and extensive landscaping. All these activities have potential to impact the hydrograph and geomorphic processes on site as well as the wildlife that depend on these processes. Evidence impact would be significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern and geomorphologic processes of the Project site through the alteration or diversion of a stream. Absent specific mitigation, the Project could result in substantial erosion or siltation on -site or off -site of the Project. In addition, a review of The Nature Conservancy's Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Pulse Map and California Department of Water Resources' Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) dataset, indicates the presence of coast live oak, a groundwater dependent ecosystem, on the Project site. Channelization of Bouquet Creek will have impacts on fish and wildlife beneficial uses and users of groundwater, including GDEs and interconnected surface water habitats, that are impacted disproportionately by shallow groundwater trends. Therefore, channelization of Bouquet Creek may result in the removal of sensitive vegetation communities and listed species associated with them. in Vd iml DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 5 of 21 June 10, 2020 Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends redesigning the Project to avoid impacts to the existing, natural extent of Bouquet Creek and its floodplain. This is important, especially given that this segment of drainage facilitates regional wildlife movement and provides an ephemeral source of water to terrestrial wildlife. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends the Project proponent actively implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollutants into ephemeral stream beds during Project activities. BMPs should be monitored and repaired, if necessary, to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. The Project proponent should prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono -filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within stream areas. All fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the Project site should be free of nonnative plant materials. Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh should be made of loose -weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other projects without welded weaves. Non -welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. Comment #3: Impacts to Oak Woodland Issue #1: As stated in the DEIR Impact 3.3e, "The proposed project would remove 26 oak trees, subject 1 oak tree to major encroachment and 2 oak trees to minor encroachment". This removal or encroachment, "would require approximately 91 replacement oak trees," according to the DEIR. Issue #2: Impact 3.3e of the DEIR also states, "If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City." CDFW does not accept "equivalent monetary value" as a means of mitigation. Specific impacts: CDFW considers oak woodlands distinct biological communities, consisting of layers that include trees, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous understory vegetation. The DEIR only considers the value of the trees and does not appear to characterize the value of these unique individual communities in a biological setting. Removal or thinning of an understory or any one of these layers in oak woodland directly impacts the functions and values of the entire oak woodland. In addition, monetary means do not mitigate for the complete loss of this distinct biological community. Why impacts would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, building construction, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of oak woodlands. Evidence impacts would be significant: The goal of the mitigation is to recreate functioning oak woodland of similar composition, structure, and function to the selected oak woodland that was impacted. The mitigation site should mimic the function, density, percent basal, canopy, and vegetation cover, as well as other measurable success criteria before the mitigation should be deemed sufficient. Mitigation measures should repair, rehabilitate, or restore the impacted Dd 10 iM DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 6 of 21 June 10, 2020 environment. Monetary mitigation does not compensate for the significant impact by replacing or providing substitute resources/environments, for such unique, biologically valuable vegetation communities that, if not mitigated in kind, will be lost forever. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: If avoidance is not possible, impacts to the oak woodland should be mitigated through habitat restoration or conservation. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation should include preparation of a separate restoration plan, to be approved by USFWS and CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan should include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should success criteria not be met; long-term management and maintenance goals; and, a funding mechanism to assure for in perpetuity management and reporting. Areas proposed as mitigation should have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968). Recommendation #2: Please note, in 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & Game Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance - and association -based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), found online at ii.q.! ....q.l�!.I ..:..glrgZ. To determine the rarity ranking and mitigation ratios of vegetation communities on the Project site, the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system. Comment #4: Vegetation Community Classification Issue: Table 3 in the BTR identifies Impacts to Vegetation Communities and the DEIR states, "plant communities were classified in accordance with Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (1996), with additional vegetation community information taken from the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (MCV; Sawyer, et al. 2008). Specific impact: CDFW considers grading a vegetation community a permanent impact unless mitigation is proposed that includes specific criteria that ensure the exact vegetation community is recreated, with consideration for the temporal loss of the habitat as well as defined success criteria and weed management. Revegetation or acquisition/preservation would be a mitigation measure proposed to offset impacts to a CDFW sensitive vegetation community. Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, road construction, utilities construction, road maintenance, fuel modification, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of sensitive vegetation communities. If sensitive areas are not correctly identified, CDFW is unable to accurately determine proper mitigation measures for that vegetation community. CDFW considers vegetation communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3 and some S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6 to 20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences. The Project may have direct or indirect effects to these sensitive vegetation communities. N 12-37 DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 7 of 21 June 10, 2020 Any revegetation effort should represent the actual vegetation community being impacted. Vegetation communities are named using alliances or associations. An example is California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer, et al., 2008) separates the diagnostic species for the California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance into trans and cis montane stands. The species assemblages for this one alliance change over the length of this project. CDFW is concerned spreading a generic seed mix that is not truly representative of the unique plant community alliances present will impact the existing habitat, introduce species that don't occur there, and ultimately change the structure of the vegetation community. Additionally, plants that aren't found in an area may not be suited to survive there, raising the rate of failure. Evidence impact would be significant: Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these sensitive communities will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect. This, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Impacts to all sensitive communities should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Using non -conforming modifications to MCV alliances may misidentify rare or sensitive vegetation communities, resulting in impacts to the species. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: Vegetation Communities that do not conform to existing MCV-defined alliances might be considered rare. All data and proposed modification to existing or new alliances should be submitted to CDFW for scientific review. If a project's dominant vegetation does not fit into one of the non-native alliances or provisional alliances, then a description (scientific, including information used to determine membership for this new alliance) should be included to defend this conclusion. This process is imperative to maintain a rigorous scientific vetting process and defensible classification system. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends that updated botanical surveys utilizing MCV- defined alliances be conducted to inform impact assessments, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the DEIR. Focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on -site should be disclosed in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist should "conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting." CEQA documentation should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on -site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project -related direct and indirect impacts. Recommendation #3: See Recommendation #2 in Comment #2 Comment #5: Mitigation for slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) Issue #1: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "Prior to construction, a mitigation plan shall be developed that describes methods to mitigate for impacts to slender mariposa lily". Providing a mitigation plan with methods of maintenance, monitoring, performance standards, and success criteria in the future is considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. 12-38 DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 8 of 21 June 10, 2020 Issue #2: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR describes the mitigation ratio as 1:1. It is unclear if the ratio is designated for individual plants or whether that includes the acreage on which they are located. In addition, 1:1 is insufficient replacement for this rare plant species. Issue #3: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "The mitigation plan shall include a description of the mitigation site...". CDFW does not support transplantation of rare plants, into areas they currently do not occur, as a mitigation strategy. Issue #4: MM 3.3-1 of the DEIR states, "seeds shall be obtained from a native plant nursery if available." CDFW is not aware of any nursery that has slender mariposa lily bulbs. Issue #5: CDFW does not accept payment into an in -lieu fee program as a viable mitigation option. Specific impacts: Project grading and fuel modification associated with the residential development would impact approximately 142 slender mariposa lilies. Construction of the new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road would impact approximately 320 slender mariposa lilies. CDFW, in general, does not recommend transplantation of rare plants, in particular bulbiferous species like the slender mariposa lily, as a mitigation/minimization measure to reduce adverse effects from the project because successful implementation of translocation is rare with minimal documented success. CDFW defines success as long-term, self-sustaining population with a positive overall population trend, demonstrated fertile seed set, and demonstrated recruitment. Even if transplantation is initially successful, they typically fail to persist over time. To ensure the conservation of sensitive plant species, transplantation should be undertaken as a last resort. Why impacts would occur: CEQA Guidelines §15070 and §15071 require the document to analyze if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as well as review if the Project will `avoid the effect or mitigate to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur'. Relying on future surveys, the preparation of future management plans, or mitigating by obtaining permits from CDFW are considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. In order to analyze if a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Project related impacts, including survey results for species that occur in the Project footprint need to be disclosed during the public comment period. This information is necessary to allow CDFW to comment on alternatives to avoid impacts, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity). These impacts would continue to be significant because MM 3.3-1 will not result in adequate avoidance or successful mitigation for the unavoidable direct, indirect and temporal losses including the uncertainties and often failures of creation or restoration practices for special status plants using transplanting of species. Evidence impacts would be significant: Creation or restoration using the transplanting of plant species should be considered experimental in nature and not be viewed as a mitigation measure to mitigate for slender mariposa lily and other CNPS special status plants below a significant level under CEQA. In addition, because transplantation projects have a poor success rate, and demonstrate a downward trend of survival over time (GodeFroid, S., et al., 2010). Studies show success of transplantation projects within the 10 to 15 percent range, with an 01 iM DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 9 of 21 June 10, 2020 optimistic outcome of 50 percent survival maintained over 5 years (or thereafter, 50% survival maintained for 1 year). In addition, the DEIR does not address the cumulative loss of slender mariposa lily in Los Angeles County adequately. A description of the remaining acreage compared to historical range, connectivity of remaining slender mariposa lily and how the loss of 320 individuals of slender mariposa lily in this location will affect the local region should be discussed in more detail and figures. Based upon MM 3.3-1, the Project would continue to result in 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 CDFW or USFWS. Absent adequate mitigation, the ecosystem function and contribution to genetic biological diversity of slender mariposa lily and other CNPS special status plants in conjunction with their contribution to breeding, feeding and cover habitat for wildlife will be compromised. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends as a better mitigation strategy. The preservation of areas where slender mariposa lily is located on site or an existing, similarly sized, population of slender mariposa lily in perpetuity at another location. This would be at an acreage of no less than 3 acres preservation of occupied habitat for every 1 acre of impact to occupied habitat. Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends the DEIR include defined mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to sensitive plants. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For any impacts that have been adequately demonstrated to be unavoidable, CDFW recommends that the City should require a scientifically rigorous monitoring and management program as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program (MMRP) that would include adaptive management strategies (Public Resources Code 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off -site mitigation through occupied habitat acquisition and preservation in perpetuity may be appropriate. Mitigation Measure #3: CDFW recommends that all open space preservation/mitigation land be protected in perpetuity with minimal human intrusion by recording and executing a perpetual conservation easement in favor of an approved agent dedicated to conserving biological resources. CDFW recommends all open space or habitat lands considered for mitigation of environmental impact under CEQA be owned and managed by an entity with experience in managing habitat and be placed under a conservation easement. CDFW has encountered problems with using portions of privately owned lots as open space habitat mitigation under CEQA. Homeowners may grade and remove vegetation on their land and there is little legal recourse to remedy this loss under CEQA. The better option is to place ownership of any open space or habitat land considered as avoidance under CEQA with a conservancy or other land management company to allow for legal remedies should trespass and clearing/damage occur. A management and monitoring plan, including a funding commitment, should be developed for any conserved land, and implemented in perpetuity to protect existing biological functions and values. Permeable wildlife fencing should be erected around any conserved land to restrict incompatible land uses and signage posted and maintained at conspicuous locations communicating these restrictions to the public. 01 iM,it DocuSign Envelope ID: 81022OF2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 10 of 21 June 10, 2020 Mitigation Measure #4: For any land that is proposed for preservation and/or restoration, the CEQA document should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity. The objective should be to offset the project -induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, invasive plant removal, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non -wasting endowment should be set aside to provide for long-term management of open space preservation/mitigation lands. Comment #6: Impacts to nesting birds Issue: The BTR indicates that coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a California Species of Special Concern and an Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species, has the possibility of occurring on site. In addition, the BTR and a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) indicates an occurrence of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a California Species of Special Concern, within a mile and a quarter of the Project site. The occurrence of oak woodland and other vegetation communities indicate the potential for nesting within and around the Project vicinity. Specific impacts: Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in trees directly adjacent to the Project boundary. The Project could also lead to the loss of foraging habitat for sensitive bird species. Why impact would occur: Impacts to nesting birds could result from ground disturbing activities. Project disturbance activities could result in mortality or injury to nestlings, as well temporary or long-term loss of suitable foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Evidence impact would be significant: The loss of occupied habitat or reductions in the number of rare bird species, either directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, would constitute a significant impact absent appropriate mitigation. Furthermore, nests of all native bird species are protected under state laws and regulations, including Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: To protect nesting birds that may occur on site or adjacent to the Project boundary, CDFW recommends that no construction should occur from February 15 (January 1 for raptors) through August 31. Mitigation Measure #2: If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist should complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of the construction site. The nesting bird surveys should be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. CDFW recommends the Lead Agency require surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of any Project -related activity likely to impact raptors and migratory songbirds, for the entire Project site. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days during the breeding season, repeat the 91 12 WON DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 11 of 21 June 10, 2020 surveys. If nesting raptors and migratory songbirds are identified, CDFW recommends the following minimum no -disturbance buffers be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non -listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active listed bird nests. These buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. These buffers should be increased if needed to protect the nesting birds. Comment #7: Impacts to Bat Species, including California Species of Special Concern Issue: The Project includes activities that will result in the removal of trees and vegetation that may provide habitat for bats. In addition, Appendix J (Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur) in the BTR, identifies Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a California Species of Special Concern, as possible likelihood to occur on site. Specific impacts: Project activities include the removal of trees, vegetation, and/or structures that may provide foraging habitat and therefore has the potential for the direct loss of bats. Why impacts would occur: The removal of vegetation and trees will potentially result in the loss of foraging habitat for bats. Evidence impacts would be significant: Bats are considered non -game mammals and are afforded protection by state law from take and/or harassment, (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Although the Townsend's big -eared bat is the species in question, it is important to remember that there are many bat species, for example the western yellow bat, that can be found year-round in urban areas throughout the south coast region (Miner & Stokes, 2005). Several bat species are considered California Species of Special Concern and meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of California Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). In addition, "Encroachment of urban development and agriculture into areas of native vegetation likely alters the composition and abundance of insect prey in an area and may affect the ability of Townsend's big -eared bat to find adequate prey. Encroachment may also disturb roosts by increasing the rate of human visitation and increasing predation pressure from cats and other generalist predators associated with human settlement" (Gruver, J.C., 2006). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends bat surveys be conducted by a qualified bat specialist to determine baseline conditions within the Project and within a 500-foot buffer. In addition, an analysis of the potential significant effects of the proposed Project on the species (CEQA Guidelines §15125). CDFW recommends the DEIR include the use of acoustic recognition technology to maximize detection of bat species to minimize impacts to sensitive bat species. The DEIR should document the presence of any bats and include species specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 12 of 21 June 10, 2020 Comment #8: Impacts to California Species of Special Concern Issue: One mammal species, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) is identified in Appendix J of the BTR (Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur) as having high possibility to occur onsite. In addition, four reptile species with a possible to likely potential to occur on site from Appendix J of the BTR include the California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegen), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). Specific impact: Project ground disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. In addition, the Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat. Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of Special Status reptile and mammal species. Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for state and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to California Species of Special Concern which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These Species of Special Concern meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency, (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #1: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, qualified biologists familiar with the reptile and mammal species behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. Surveys should be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. California legless lizard are active year- round in the mornings and evenings; California glossy snake are nocturnal and active February to November (peaking in May); coastal whiptail are diurnal (activity peaking in late morning) and active from March to October; coast horned lizard are active February to November and are diurnal in the spring and crepuscular in summer and fall (Thomson, R.C. et al., 2016). Jackrabbits have yearlong diurnal and crepuscular activity (Zeiner, D.C. et al., 1988-1990). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW for review 2 weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. Mitigation Measure #2: To further avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on -site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm's way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project -related grading activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the designated entity should obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. Filing Fees 12-43 DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 13 of 21 June 10, 2020 The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. °° 2 Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Conclusion We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Felicia Silva, Environmental Scientist, at : III„iigii iill�r wiilldlliife.ca. ov or (562) 430-0098. Sincerely, OocuSigned by, Viln tn, u4sm, B6E51CFE24724F5.... Ennn Wilson Environmental Program Manager I ec: CDFW Victoria Tang — Los Alamitos Felicia Silva — Los Alamitos Andrew Valand — Los Alamitos Frederic Reiman — Los Alamitos Malinda Santonil — Los Alamitos Susan Howell — San Diego CEQA Program Coordinator - Sacramento State Clearinghouse References: Bauer, S., J. Olson, A. Cockrill, M. Van Hattem, L. Miller, M. Tauzer, and G. Leppig. 2015. Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on aquatic habitat in four northwestern California watersheds. PLoS ONE 10:e0120016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Accessed at: I� tt s:ffniEm.dt .ca. ovflf Hell llandlleir.asl�ix ll::)ocuiiiientllll::)18959&iinlliine. .................................................................0..........................0....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cushman, R. M. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream from hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:330-339. Godefroid, S., Van de Vyver, A., Vanderborght. 2010. Germination capacity and viability of threatened species collections in seed banks. Biodiversity Conservation 19:1365-1383. 12-44 DocuSign Envelope ID: 810220F2-164B-468B-973A-OFC903C78859 Hai Nguyen City of Santa Clarita Page 14 of 21 June 10, 2020 Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend's Big -eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:H www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [Accessed May 11, 2020]. Junk, W., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Pages 110-127 in D. P. Dodge, editor. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. Marine, K. R., and J. J. Cech, Jr. 2004. Effects of high water temperature on growth, smoltification, and predator avoidance in juvenile Sacramento River chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:198-210. Miner, Karen L. & Stokes, Drew C. 2005. Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and Research Needs. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-195. Irltt s:ff fs.fed.usf swf ulblliicatiioiris/docuiri�entsf sw 11.ir 19 f sw 11:ir 19 2 13 I�fliineir. d p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,, f Moore, M. K., and V. R. Townsend. 1998. The interaction of temperature, dissolved oxygen and predation pressure in an aquatic predator -prey system. Oikos 81:329-336. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegarrd, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784. Sasaki, S. et. al. (1977). Draft Recovery Plan For Unarmored Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) an Endangered Fish. Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Recovery Team. 51 pp. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. ISBN 978 0 943460 49 9. Sparks, R. E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. BioScience 45:168-182. Thomson, Robert C., Wright, Amber N., Shaffer, H. Bradley. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. Oakland. University of California Press and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2009. Unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, USFWS, Ventura, CA, USA. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. 1-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. IMI'% u To As t FRO 2 U) LL C7 N 0 O)-OG) L LJ 04 S 0O 4- 0) �UOf < -r- . CO c o(n�(nSO a �cu Ocu O ca O 0 0 0 0 0 0 •� VJ LL VJ LL VJcu LL Q O a) O a) O N � T •� 4 U - �_ c �UUdCUUd _ _ UU n CD O o 0 Z) 0 Z) 0 Z) L � L � L O c O c O c L O L O L O dU dU dU O .. O �_ OU � O (B a) L (B (B E a) U Mn a) U �. U ' a) (B � E a) Up n u) � a) a) O m u) o O O �_ U--0� O 4 C— U) U cn a) o v i 0�,� a) — _ Z) �. C: U (n — _ a) o o C— °Q .� i Oo O ,D L> ° ca _ 0 a � o ate) cn — a) O a) 'i j O a) _ U C: (B CUa) a) u) O Z) (B •� a) N `� '� '� N N (B N L p > U— 0 Q Q O a) (u Q a) L O L L — O - - O "-' 'gin u) (u � a) >, a) (B � a) N 0— - p Q > u) L u) u) � E � — O �75 `� �� �' ^ �'U)-0 U U -_ 0) a) 01 a)� u) Z _ a)m �, C: Um�. U a) OLD cn a) cn a) p V cn (B `. W •O Q cn O a) •� a) ++ �. Z U� a) Q � (B a) E //L•� a) (B c +� U m N cn U _ L U U LL L a) _ U U T N E L p L a) � "- X a) O U a) — , OL a) O a) a) (B E _ .� c Q a •� O a) in - a) � d a) LL a) O L Q 0 E ? •� L — C c p Z) a) B O O c/� ui O p N> O L 0 C)>L) �) (U �C: 0 (B Q a) u) � Q O O a) i� u) C (>B O •� Q V -00 N Q (�� O O �! a) E O U L (u U (u O LL 0 d ��- a) cn O (B •U E yam. uu)i a) D p U m X H a) O a) O E (B d a) " O (B (B E E d E 0 L O ca (B a) Q- a) a) 3: u) u) u) u) .s - a) a) 4O •F I... -I.-, 0 a) �Y �Y a) Ct Q� Q� E++ Ei Ei NU MU U O oa0 w O p m Y m a m a p c� c3 C) c� 7 c� 7 co Nam �m m m co � L Co LL 0,- C, o co N NO o N Co p N ao �UCp 0) 4— z O N N a� >+ c CL 0 20 Ud� a� w rn Un U O 0 ca O ca O ca O c o c o o U a U a U a 0 L) 0 (1) o � (1) c o � T o C o UUd UUd _ C) C) 0- 0 U U U O L O L O L U L U c U O c O L c L O 'L O Z) O 0- C) 0- C) DU 70 - ca (1) ° o� �_ 0) a) �a �Q o cn E cn o�_ L O U M (n 0 O E M >, C cu cB L cn O OU � p +� (B O O � N i U N> L•L, cB 0 N p� cB N p >, U � N N cB N O > U U U> �"'. E L) cn > N m O-0 U cB N E O p L (� "� N 00 O N c ui N N U O_ U� •m (B O O N "� CU N c� c� N O O E O _ U L.- `~ "J Cn U N -0 "J p Q CU O cO c a) (U (B L U�(0 O. O E � +-- N O N- N M n cn N N Q (B 0) N ca U N Q m Q n O U N O c OU 0 0 O N U U cu N cB cUn CU icu cu ) N (B � _0-0 N O-0 p O U cn p� N N O - U p � U N-0 c O-0 O cu O 'j - U O cUn (B � j C: CU U 0) N— O U cUn o CU N cn E O 0 � Q� O OU cu E cu U O O Q '� U O O +� UU p •N 2)U < N E 0- U O U `a- L �. U � E O L1J p L O O U O N U Q m E M- ,_ U -0 U Mn Q 0 O L () 'L' w U m c Q O 0 cQ cu c : N cu >1 cu U T c "- U cB Q M L O O O' c c cB U N' (E � Q O N - O yam'.., — (u N U N N - N cu N N N � cn Q � cn U cB U c p L U O N cB N `-' E-0 O-0 z) N � y cu ?� U O N cu U a L Q O U> C c O D-0 N C O N c cn U O'n.— O U c cu U a) �L .2 in U �O cu cB O Q U 0 a)U> U cBcu cB _ N O� O N C)cu O U E N Q- U U .� E� cu cn E O U O ca O Q >— > ca cn c cB L Q� O U L— (a _0 D M U U in N c O N> O C) — O -0 ca 'p 1 U N cn � N U _ O cB U U U — X (B N L � U O U N N c U U M N E U c ca U L O O ca Q U N > C L L m U Q O c N N U .� L Q 0 p d% ' m Q O cn L.L 7o O O O O 0 > aNi > aNi 4^' 1 1 ^ m^' 1 O 03 03 m m E m E O O ! U U co y-+ UFO co N N O a) O N = U) ti O O) 4- Z O N N O) co .= co = 0 d 0 � Q cu0Q cu O O U a U a U) o� oCU a1) o� cu o o CU _ UU a _ UU a _ UU 0 o O U U U O Z) O Z) O Z) L U) L U L U O c O c O c L O L O L O dU dU dU Baia) aUi °cucn ° E cu o U o + O (1) co O Q a) E �' � a) CO a) cn a) �.- a) a cUn — =O u- c OQ Q � U U� Lr- -. mo w Z) cn V O N cu cu � Z CU —0 cn ooctj Z) � U 0 (o � .� � Q U .N N a) Z a) +- co U O En a) > cE O c � L O > L N G OU OO �O a) L a)O QN>1 -0cuLu CL O E N-0 C ) cco � � cu cu 0 to -0 ? '> � �. U co � -0L1 U — 0 0 0 0 0 cn N — CU c O a) >N Q j M-- C —Cu 0 0 C CU (o U U a) z 0 co Z) U N (� N L cn O 'Q cn .- Q U co a) cn O O O `5 cn � U c�� E 0 O N L L E O- O O O ?� �. O U O U L L (� O U,UNZ) Qa) d �O U: M -QN Ucu a)a) cn a) O aoCL�Z 0 oD Qico 0- p U d L CLcQcu � L~o) ' cn N Da) Z) 0cn a)�-0 oo� -0 O U U �c. co >, a) cu `CU c-c- co cu — a) d Q 0) to U�- c cu O UO— �0) O ° � U L cU� CLn O1 O O co U �Q Q O) `~ N U co � a) E co-- Z ° O Q m m Q 0 04 T cu U EE O) -o O U cu a) M U O U c c co U O a) cn z) U >, a) OL -0 a) _ O_ O) E Q U Ncu 0- d O U ~- a N 0 a) U co ch L 0 L E 0 4O O co LLJ a) O o 0 cu a) O O U CFn U Q L-01- N "J U'"J U N 0-0 co 00Q Hco nUEE�a(D3:co>coco m0) U .C: O O Q N cu O O L c 0) E E -c Z) O -r- cu cu cu E a) E N E Q -r- U cu Q a) Q Q a)O Q L L L f� U C? U U O O O o o o CO CL CO CL CO CL E E E co m co � L Co LL 0,- C, o co N NO o N Co p N 00 7UeoC 0) 4- z 0 N N N >' 0) C 0 2 U d N W U) U O 0 o cu O c o o n U a (1) o�� o_ o n UUd 0 U O O L O dU L O cu U L N U `— cn O U — N cB _ cu O) L O Q cu L U c L L � -C � + 70 Z) y O N c C > : cu cu .� a) m U � D� O O � �. L O > cn a) p cn cu -- N c U cB a) Z) O C ,� O E a)a) L ca �. N� O >, a) cB N -0 O 0) 70 U cu E U O O 0 to "- m cn � cB U O "J U cB O cn O . a) a) O O� —E� cn a) N i O �' N U N U a) � E cu (B :' a) E0 o cu >, a) �� a) a) °Qo L) °� ° ��m �U o a��ia � � ° cn � n �� �-o E c o U� -0 '� O O L O� L L _ _0 0 "- 0- N CU (� U Q >, OL _a cB cB L Q O o U U CS — a) Q U D a) (B > N cn to > N .� o >, a) a) ca � L (B O cB O-0 N a) LL U c: a) O � cu O 0 o Q O N .� a) in U O �j N E� a) a L (D O 0-0 > Q U �o ��U o o - � >N> E �- �') U L)i-0.- o o.- ' aa)= .O � � E O Z) a) C— � (U O — 0) y-=� a) � O1 L �_ U 0 cB U 0 d to M O0 O Q -o � u� U L Q � a) N O o >, -- c L p cn O N Q U 0) .2 � ui � CU� Q Cn U U 'Q O �< N p .� cUn Z Q > a) (B � a) .� cB >, = a) O L m -0 0 '� Lu a) E U -0 U (B O Q O � � � (a cn � to � c6 � to � _ U � N Q Qcu p U U U � N �. U E 0 O0 � N cB N � U � O Co:- > � cB p L a) > � cn N c � � � Ncu 00 L -0 O N a) O� U L O N ca -0� a) ��, c N > U� ?� U M a) cu 0 N 0 cu cn cu 0- LU c Lu O E O O m cu cU— N O "J �. cu �_ o' 4 o'��Q.L U a) j> E O U U U O O o Q >+ cucu " a) �• a) a) L ton > —Op c LU o Q c o p N o 0O L o L >, � cu Q-0 �� Q L) o N '� o cn o Q �� .� CU U �'Qca E �� cu o cu cu O U �� °U aXi o Qo= �. a�.� ��LLL a) �.� �� a) E�.� L 0 r OU O m Q L c� C E m co � L Co LL U,-O o co N NO o N Co p N ao �(na)p 0) 4- z 0 N N a> 0 >> C 0 2 U d a� W U) U O 0 cu O cu O cu O o c c o cu U a cu U) o n cu U a c) c) a UU n UUd 0 o O U U U O Z) O O Z) L � L � L O c O O c L O L O L O dU dU dU >, E 0 CU 1 `�� >�_ 0 Z) uS�n O O U O —o cu LC) � Z--, Ui a) U CU L L i= �_ cn 0 a) = N L a) 0 0 O L i cu -0 0 a) �O a) � cu E a) � a) �. O � O cu N O U)c 0 ��— U L O U �, cu 0 N j cu o a) cu � �_ N p U L O O n U '� O N a) O L 0 U �. O M U `� a) c a p �, �. N L i 0 0 a) = Q S U N OcnCU N CU � OO a) - c.N Q� UO O " U) � N cu� (B pUO 0- 0 Q n p)00�,cu> U a) cu N L) a) ° a) CU 0-, cn CU 0Q o � �� CU c a)� a) ��. > O � -0 a)-0� CU-a U N O j cn N ' � 0 a) m U a) O O cu cu� O i a) `� '� CU O � � -0 Z) � a) U � -0 0 a) cn cn U N 0 i (B p cu U /�L a) U � a) a) L� L L-0 U O p 0 O ) (n L U LU) 7 Q � L LL, L L ( O ^' V/ L L) Ln O U) 0- 0 O� U) a) N O ,� 0 0 CU CU d o a) o O c m Qcu a) a) p Z cu a) � �. i? 3 0) (B CU i , O L cn a) -a) C > cn L y--� O - O �, O E i L �. E in L �. 6) a) a) � c Uc L O c6 O L Z) a) �, cn in cu L � a) L U "-' � �. LL O cn O� (� a) O U p p N cu c/� ��' v) a) n�` E O L) MN p U U L Q O •O a) Q CU �1 N70 cn �p cn O U cn `v ��♦ W L 70 CU CU Q U 0 > E "_' U >, a) �. cn CU 0 0 a) a) a) 0 L �. �, a) O N H O Q °° ai U 1 N ai u0i vOi ai - m - d OQ U) rn 72 72 U) a) a) a) s= s= CL cn aNi aNi a z z m 1 1 N 1 M r O r O r O m 1 m 1 m 1 ............. 0o co � L co LL U,-o o co N NO o N Co p N ao � U) Q p)4—N� 0 Z O N CL co >+ c C 0 2 U d a� W U) U O 0 cu o cu O U a U a 0 L) o�� c o � T o UUd UUd o O U U O O 1- 0 O c L O L O dU dU > N u O U O U) N L) N � •� U) CU — O FU � (1) O� 1 0 ^ Q L ' 1 U nU/1� p TS /N) TES V -0 0 1 CU O C O� Q .2 U C CU U c L tL) c E L U— �� p L p) W i� _ Q U V Yi O L cn .� 1 cu W �V O V% O L O 0 N U Q CU 70 Q O U O (B d� cu N N O U >, N N >+ cn N N N cn n Q ) N N E>—> to > � p �_ � N _0 N i L . N Q to cB U U 1 L U Q N L> O +� N MQN OUO>o0 O L)— � O Lo O E N U n _ O n O U O z -0 t �-o _ -o E N 0 -oO z O Lm Z) O O O0cQE- cunN� Ln--+cn 0- >V) c i N M I O m V E� cm 0) •N N E p .=N c O L)-0c cB cB "iU U n n P E p c O T U O) Op cn 0U a)LU �N -0 CQ U N N , _a •J �cn - E m n _0 jQ c CU NON > N a) c N N cn LL-0 a)p O LL Z-- yO N cB p U N �N_0cu O� U p Q cO �+cn� pVJ� cB t E Up w UQU 0 > N JO O U E cu c �(u 'N U N W NN cnca N O ca u NO cuLa cn N>— O E co) m cu U U U O cu -o 0) N a ��O U U O O O-6 U Nc 0N O NO� m 0, p t, OO> 0 p > p cv �Q d �� L N '0 O N U N O 2 2 N O O C (B >N N O �.. _ E U Q E 50 6 5- U O ca ._ ca ._— `. N H cv O— O N N � O O Q V 7 4 ccO R r 1 U O- zv- r 1 Oy m 'v m E 2 cn _ CL 3 f 0 5 \ O_e §co%\ =/moo o\ 0 Z 0 0 e: 7§ IQI� Roy COLE Response to Comments by Roy Cole, E-Mail dated May 21, 2020 Comment 1: 1 am strongly opposed to this project. Response 1: This opinion is noted. Comment 2: There seem to several inconsistencies as to what is significant or not significant in separate parts of the document. One example is the ridge line to be flattened is significant, but not the most the most significant so it ends up being not significant in the mitigation. Response 2: The first sentence refers to "several inconsistencies..." in the EIR, but only identifies one example in the second sentence. Accordingly, only the second sentence will be responded to. As discussed on pages 3.1-1 1 thru 3.1-13 of the Draft EIR, the proposed grading of the southern portion of the on -site significant ridgeline is acknowledged as extensive; however, since it is 200 feet or more lower than other significant ridgelines in this part of Santa Clarita, it is not considered to be a character - defining features of the Saugus community. Further, it is visible primarily from a mobile viewing audience traveling by automobile along the adjacent segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, where the viewing experience is momentary and changes constantly with as the motorist travels along the road. It is not considered to be as important as a stationary public vantage point along a recognized scenic corridor, where people can enjoy the view of a scenic resource or a scenic vista for an extended period of time. Based on these considerations, the aesthetic impact of the proposed ridgeline grading was determined to be less than significant. Comment 3: 1 believe this number of homes would have a larger effect on traffic than stated. For miles around turn lanes as well as thru lanes will be even more congested despite the mitigations. Response 3: The traffic impact analysis prepared for the EIR is consistent with the City's standards and with current industry standards for analysis of level of service impacts due to a new development project. The proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential level of service impacts sufficiently to achieve the City's performance standards for those affected intersections, and this was determined through commonly applied methodologies to analyze the intersection performance in terms of the volume of vehicles moving through that intersection during peak periods. Comment 4: Also debris on roadways, sand, gravel, etc. seems inevitable during construction. Response 4: The proposed grading plan is to balance all earthwork within the project site. As such, there would not be dump truck traffic carrying soil materials on or off -site `K15i as part of the grading program. Routine and mandatory construction control measures will be implemented throughout the construction phases to prevent deposition of sand, gravel and other construction debris on streets surrounding the project site. For example, as stated on page 3.2-16 of the Draft EIR, the project would implement all required SCAQMD dust control techniques (e.g., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. These dust control measures would also prevent tracking out of sand, gravel and debris by construction vehicles. Comment 5: 1 am also concerned for the wildlife in the area. Even the ones that are not protected. Response 5: Potential impacts to wildlife are discussed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. Potentially significant impacts to migratory birds such as burrowing owl or other species that might be nesting during construction would be avoided through Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 and 3.3-5. No other significant impacts to wildlife were identified on the basis of the biological surveys conducted at the project site and examination of documented occurrences of sensitive wildlife found in the Santa Clarita Valley area. Comment 6: Noise during and after construction would seem to lessen the quality of life in the area. Response 6: Noise impacts during construction and over the long-term operating life of the project area addressed in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR. This comment does not address the adequacy of that analysis; therefore, no further response can be provided. Comment 7: Property values near the project would probably fall. Response 7: This comment speculates about the project's potential impacts to local property values. This issue is outside of the scope of concern under CEQA. Comment 8: Air quality for 5 years of construction will almost certainly suffer. Response 8: This statement appears to be in recognition of the estimated 5-year construction time frame identified on page 2.0-17 of the Draft EIR. The commenter's concern with regard to the time period of construction impacts is noted. Comment 9: 1 am in the flag lot on Nickie Ln., so I am very close to the proposed action. Presently I enjoy neighbors only in the front of my property and a quiet isolated area. This is why I chose this house and feel it's why my property tax is so high. I would very much like to preserve my quality of life here in Santa Clarita. Response 9: This comment notes the commenter's place of residence in proximity to the proposed project site, the quiet, isolated character of this area, and the desire to preserve his quality of life. It does not address any aspect of the Draft EIR. This comment is noted. 13-3 Hai Nguyen From: a a <royzmail64@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:53 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Salutations, I would like to express some of my concerns after reading DEIR of Master Case 18-0089. 1 am strongly opposed to this project. There seem to several inconsistencies as to what is significant or not significant in separate parts of the document. One example is the ridge line to be flattened is significant, but not the most the most significant so it ends up being not significant in the mitigation. I believe this number of homes would have a larger effect on traffic than stated. For miles around turn lanes as well as thru lanes will be even more congested despite the mitigations. Also debris on roadways, sand, gravel, etc. seems inevitable during construction. I am also concerned for the wildlife in the area. Even the ones that are not protected. Noise during and after construction would seem to lessen the quality of life in the area. Property values near the project would probably fall. Air quality for 5 years of construction will almost certainly suffer. I am in the flag lot on Nickie Ln., so I am very close to the proposed action. Presently I enjoy neighbors only in the front of my property and a quiet isolated area. This is why I chose this house and feel it's why my property tax is so high. I would very much like to preserve my quality of life here in Santa Clarita. Thank you in advance for your attention. Roy Cole 20525 Nickie Ln Saugus, 91350 661.263.3171 royzmail64@gmail.com 13-4 SUSAN MANESS Response to Comments by Susan Maness, E-Mail dated June 3, 2020 Comment 1: It is impossible to fully understand the scope of this project and its environmental impact since there are no elevation viewpoints shown to address the extent of grading and soil removal of the City designated "significant ridgeline" in order to mine soil for the realignment of the New Bouquet Canyon Road. Response 1: Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR includes figures 3.1-6 thru and 3.1-1 1, which illustrate existing and developed conditions along existing Bouquet Canyon Road on the western side of the project site, where portions of the significant ridgeline are visible in the foreground, and would be graded for construction of the new Bouquet Canyon Road and development of clusters of new homes. Figures 3.12 to 3.1-14 illustrate existing and post development views from the existing intersection of David Way and Bouquet Canyon Road, with the significant ridgeline visible in the background. Comment 2: It is stated in the EIR that proposed housing is consistent with surrounding single family homes. How can you say row Townhomes qualify for that classification since none exist in the area? Response 2: This comment does not refer to a specific place in the EIR where this statement is made. It appears that this comment is referring to a sentence that appears at the bottom of page 3.1-13, where it stated "No new homes or other structures would exceed two stories/35 feet in height and the built environment character of all proposed planning areas would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding residential neighborhoods" and a similar statement at the top of page 3.1- 31 of the Draft EIR, where it is stated "No new homes or other structures would exceed two stories in height and the built environment character of all proposed planning areas would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding residential neighborhoods." These two statements focus on the scale and massing of the proposed two story homes, which would be consistent with scale and massing of existing single family homes near the project site. This statement does not refer to the type of homes to be built, only the physical form, which is pertinent to the assessment of aesthetic impacts relative to changes in the visual character and quality of the site and surroundings. The statements in the EIR are also followed by additional explanation to support this determination, i.e.: "Further, the project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of building massing and maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for travelers along Bouquet Canyon Road" (bottom, page 3.1-13) "Further, the project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of building massing through site design and site landscaping and maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for travelers along Bouquet Canyon Road. Therefore, the project would result in a new community image of high visual character and quality and would not `E substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings." (top of page 3.1-31). Comment 3: The intent of the plan is to maintain views for "travelers". Where do you state the intent for current tax paying homeowners to maintain their existing natural views? Response 3: This comment expresses an opinion that existing homeowners' views should be part of the project's intent. This opinion is noted. The Draft EIR did not assess impacts on existing homeowners' views, since the CEQA thresholds for aesthetics impacts are concerned with views from public viewing locations, where there is a substantial and regular viewing audience. Comment 4: It is stated that the current habitat supports 4 wildlife species, none of which were seen in your observation of the site. You DID NOT LIST the species. From my yard, I observe red tail hawks circling and hunting in that area as well as coyotes seeking food sources along with rabbits and other birds. Response 4: This comment does not identify the specific statement in the Draft EIR that is being questioned. There is no such statement in the Draft EIR that is noted in the first sentence of this comment. Appendix B of the Biological Technical Report (this full report is provided as Appendix C of the Draft EIR) provides a comprehensive list of wildlife species observed or detected within the project site. This list includes both red-tailed hawks and Cooper's hawk. As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1 Investigative Methods, on pages 3.3-1 thru 3.3-3 of the Draft EIR, extensive literature research was conducted to determine the range of wildlife species known to occur in the project area, and several field investigations were conducted by professional wildlife biologist to identify suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species and signs of wildlife actually occurring on site. On page 3.3-7 of the Draft EIR, it is noted that a total of 45 animal species were identified on site, including 1 reptile species, 40 bird species, and 4 mammal species. On page 3.3-16 of the Draft EIR, it is noted that there is highly suitable habitat on site to support four sensitive wildlife species that have been observed in the area of the project site: coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, loggerhead shrike, and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. None of these species were identified during the on -site biological surveys. No Species of Special Concern were identified during three consecutive years of on -site biological surveys. Comment 5: It is stated that the project will pay in 4ieu fees to the City because it lacks sufficient land per unit use for a proper size park. How will occupants of said project get to surrounding city parks in order to enjoy their benefit? I suggest this is just one element that will increase traffic flow/pollution. ION Response 5: The assessment of the project's traffic impacts is based on total trip generation for all trip purposes commonly associated with a residential community, developed through empirical studies conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. As such, the traffic analysis provided in the Draft EIR accounts for trips generated for recreational purposes. Comment 6: The report appears to imply every point of egress/ingress to the project and surrounding areas is subject to a "D" level at certain times. Traffic impact will be notable for all areas surrounding the project at peak traffic hours (D, E, F) with a statement that any mitigation you implement will have a "less than significant impact". The EIR seems to repeatedly imply there is no significant impact that can't be mitigated yet you fail to prove that as true. Moving traffic from one area simply redirects it to another, there is no benefit for everyone. Response 6: The traffic impact analysis prepared for the EIR is consistent with the City's standards and with current industry standards for analysis of level of service impacts due to a new development project. The proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential level of service impacts sufficiently to achieve the City's performance standards for those affected intersections, and this was determined through commonly applied methodologies to analyze the intersection performance in terms of the volume of vehicles moving through that intersection during peak periods. Comment 7: NOISE will increase as the traffic flow increases from the new residents, as you subtlety stated. Response 7: A quantitative analysis of roadway noise impacts due to the traffic generated by the proposed project is discussed on page 3.10-16 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Table 3.10-6, on the following page. As discussed therein, the amount of new traffic generated by this project would not significantly increase roadway noise levels, because in all locations analyzed, the project's traffic would result in an increase of less than 1 dBA, which is below the 3 dBA threshold that indicates a potentially significant impact. Comment 8: All students will have to be transported to education facilities, increasing the daily traffic flow. Response 8: Children who live in the proposed residential community would attend the same public schools as children who live in the surrounding area and would travel to those school campuses in the same manner, i.e. by private automobile or school bus. The specific numbers who would travel by automobile versus bus cannot be predicted at this time. Trip generation estimates for this project are based on empirical studies conducted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which account for all types of 14-3 trip purposes in a typical 24-hour period for new homes of this type. As such, the traffic associated with transporting school -age children to local public schools has been properly accounted for in the traffic impact analysis prepared for the EIR. Comment 9: The surrounding communities will be impacted for5 years as this project, as it stands, is built out. Response 9: This statement appears to be in recognition of the estimated 5-year construction time frame identified on page 2.0-17 of the Draft EIR. The commenter's concern with regard to the time period of construction impacts is noted. Comment 10: Why is the #2 Alternate wedged between 1 and 3? Is it because it is a fully viable alternative that will lessen the impact of ridgeline loss, earth movement, air quality, noise, pollution, and quality of life for those subject to enduring construction for builder benefit? The only way to make this project better for the existing community is to default to the plan that truly mitigates the enormous impact for current homeowners. #2 Alternate is the only possible potential option. Response 10: This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 2 "Reduced Grading", as it is described in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR. This opinion is noted. 14-4 Hai Nguyen From: Susan Maness <susan.maness@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:10 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: EIR Bouquet Canyon Project Y`Il if Y If"IIVII 4&4 This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Mr. Hnguyen, After reading this report, I must express my OPPOSITION to the Bouquet Canyon Project as you propose for the following reasons: 1. It is impossible to fully understand the scope of this project and its environmental impact since there are no elevation viewpoints shown to address the extent of grading and soil removal of the City designated "significant ridgeline" in order to mine soil for the realignnment of the New Bouquet Canyon road. 2. It is stated in the EIR that proposed housing is consistent with surrounding single family homes. How can you say row Townhomes qualify for that classification since none exist in the area? 3. The intent of the plan is to maintain views for "travelers". Where do you state the intent for current tax paying homeowners to maintain their existing natural views? 4. It is stated that the current habitat supports 4 wildlife species, none of which were seen in your observation of the site. You DID NOT LIST the species. From my yard, I observe red tail hawks circling and hunting in that area as well as coyotes seeking food sources along with rabbits and other birds. 5. It is stated that the project will pay in -lieu fees to the City because it lacks sufficient land per unit use for a proper size park. How will occupants of said project get to surrounding city parks in order to enjoy their benefit? I suggest this is just one element that will increase traffic flow/pollution. 6. The report appears to imply every point of egress/ingress to the project and surrounding areas is subject to a "D" level at certain times. Traffic impact will be notable for all areas surrounding the project at peak traffic hours (D, E, F) with a statement that any mitigation you implement will have a "less than significant impact". The EIR seems to repeatedly imply there is no significant impact that can't be mitigated yet you fail to prove that as true. Moving traffic from one area simply redirects it to another; there is no benefit for everyone. 7. NOISE will increase as the traffic flow increases from the new residents, as you subtlety stated. 8. All students will have to be transported to education facilities, increasing the daily traffic flow. 9. The surrounding communities will be impacted for 5 years as this project, as it stands, is built out. 10. Why is the #2 Alternate wedged between 1 and 3? Is it because it is a fully viable alternative that will lessen the impact of ridgeline loss, earth movement, air quality, noise, pollution, and quality of life for IElW those subject to enduring construction for builder benefit? The only way to make this project better for the existing community is to default to the plan that truly mitigates the enormous impact for current homeowners. #2 Alternate is the only possible potential option. 1011 SECTION 3.1 ; ErrMa and Revi'sions to Draft Draft EIR Revisions CITY OF SANTA CLARITA BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH No. 2018121009 Prepared for. Cify�f SANTA GL,ARI"IA HAI NGUYEN ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 302 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 EMAIL: H NGUYEN @SANTA-CLARITA.COM PHONE: ( ,1666,1) 255-4365 Prepared by: INTERNATIONAL 3760 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 270 LONG BEACH, CA 90806 APRIL 2020 TABLES ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................ ES-1 Table 2.0-1 Summary of Proposed Housing Units by Planning Area................................................2.0-10 Table 2.0-2 Construction Program....................................................................................................2.0-17 Table 3.2-1 Measured Air Quality Levels............................................................................................3.2-3 Table 3.2-2 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................3.2-7 Table 3.2-3 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance................................3.2-10 Table 3.2-4 Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emissions...............................................................3.2-15 Table 3.2-5 Long -Term Operational Air Emissions............................................................................3.2-19 Table 3.2-6 Construction Localized Significance Emissions Summary..............................................3.2-23 Table 3.3-1 Vegetation Communities Identified in Biological Survey Area........................................3.3-4 Table 3.3-2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities.............................................................................3.3-18 Table 3.5-1 Electricity Consumption in Los Angeles County 2008-2018.............................................3.5-3 Table 3.5-2 Natural Gas Consumption in Los Angeles County 2008-2018.........................................3.5-3 Table 3.5-3 Automotive Fuel Consumption in Los Angeles County 2010-2020..................................3.5-4 Table 3.5-4 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption................................................................3.5-7 Table 3.6-1 Significant Nearby Seismic Sources..................................................................................3.6-5 Table 3.6-2 Notable Historical Earthquakes (M>5.5) within 100 Kilometers of Project .....................3.6-6 Table 3.7-1 Projected Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................3.7-16 Table 3.7-2 Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan...........................................................3.7-18 Table 3.7-3 Project Consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.........................................................3.7-23 Table 3.7-4 Project Consistency with the Santa Clarita General Plan...............................................3.7-24 Talblle 3.9 1. IResults of{sire l{giro"ect and{giro"ect IFtecl�air.e Condiitiions Anall siis............................... ..3.9-:�.6 u.......................................................................................................g..................................................................................X........................................................................................................................................... Table 3.10-1 Noise Descriptors...........................................................................................................3.10-2 Table 3.10-2 Noise Measurements.....................................................................................................3.10-6 Table 3.10-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................................3.10-8 Table 3.10-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.....................................3.10-10 Table 3.10-5 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment.................................3.10-14 Table 3.10-6 Modeled Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels..................................3.10-17 Table 3.10-7 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Activities..................................................3.10-18 Table 3.10-8 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment..............................................................3.10-20 Table 3.11-1 Current School Enrollment and Capacity.......................................................................3.11-9 Table 3.11-2 Project Student Enrollment Estimates.........................................................................3.11-11 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROPOSED PROJECT This EIR evaluates the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project. The project site is approximately '74.66 acres of undeveloped land located in the Saugus area of the City of Santa Clarita ............................. approximately 0.2 miles to the north of the junction of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road. The site is currently undeveloped and is covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills on the west, and Bouquet Creek, which flows along the northern portion of the site from east to west. The proposed project would develop this site with a total of 375 for -sale dwelling units divided into groups of five distinct neighborhoods: Planning Areas 1 and 1a —These two planning areas will comprise of a total of 64 single family detached homes with driveways. They are located in the western and southwestern portion of the project site. Planning Area 2 — This area will consist of 136 single family detached homes in 8-pack clusters. This area is located in the central portion of the project site and would be accessed by a street passing next to Planning Area 3. Planning Area 3 — This area will consist of 90 single-family attached, attached backyard town style homes. This area is located on the southeastern portion of the project site. Planning Area 4 — This area will consist of 85 two-story, attached rowtown homes with carriage units. This area is located in the northern portion of the project site. The development of the site will include extensive alterations to the existing landscape and topography, with substantial site improvements to support a residential community. A major element is the reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain. Other improvements include internal streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, electrical and natural gas infrastructure, including off -site connections to existing distribution mains for water, sewer, energy and telecommunications services, private recreation areas, and public parkland and trails. An additional facet of the project is the realignment of a segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This realignment is a planned objective in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. It would involve abandoning a portion of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road between Hob Avenue and Pam Court and constructing a new segment starting 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road and extending to 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane. The new portion of Bouquet Canyon Road would be a four -lane roadway with bicycle lanes and parkways on both sides. The proposed project would be constructed over an estimated time -frame of 60 months, in four distinct phases: site clearing/mass grading of the entire site, site improvements, off -site improvements, and home construction and landscaping. The grading plan would involve an estimated excavation of 2,069,664 cubic yards and an embankment (fill) of 2,052,237 cubic yards. All earthwork would be balanced on site. All planning areas are anticipated to be developed simultaneously, with full occupancy occurring by 2024-25. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For more detailed descriptions and exhibits, see Section 2 of this Draft EIR. Required Approvals City of Santa Clarita • Tentative Tract Map 82126—to subdivide the subject property into 19 lots for residential land uses, streets, private drives, drainage infrastructure, slopes, and various open space lots. • Conditional Use Permit 18-004—for private gating of multi -family units, any building heights greater than 35 feet, and cluster development. • Architectural Design Review 18-010—for the proposed building design, styles, and forms. • Development Review 18-009—for the proposed physical design and layout of the project. • Hillside Development Review (Class 14- .....) 18-001—to develop land with average cross slopes of 10 percent or more. • Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001—for development near a designated significant ridgeline in the ridgeline preservation overlay zone. • Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 —required for any encroachments or removals of protected oak trees. • Landscape Plan Review 19-017—for proposed landscape plan. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board • Construction General Permit, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. • Water Quality Certification, pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. United States Army Corps of Engineers • Nationwide Permit, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, for alterations to Bouquet Creek. Federal Emergency Management Agency • Letter of Map Revision, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65, to modify floodplain limits along Bouquet Creek and amend the City's Flood Insurance Rate Map, under the National Flood Insurance Program. City of Santa Clarita April 2020 Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-2 G _O u -W c ca := H•' Q +� m m U tl0.0 J (n U a Q O Z +� m m U tl0.0 J (n > -i C c •2 c to _ +� O t O m U° '� N° m > 3 c .-i t p 0 Q Q O c E p E .� +� GO cc U N> N *'' c: N a N p C >> > o 0) E .fl rara 3 7 c 0 ra EA • U �— u- •— O 'O N � N N C -a C C cn � O� o i N Q N U N r6 m J 'Q r6 a pp p p u- Q - C Q O N y t C to to L U N O 7 ro N M r6 = ,+ 0) M C p X� N `- Q o '� r..j nj 'a Cc� N ° rCp .0 C piE O N . �J Vf toOU NN O GO CGG Q M M cu O ra E t C - 7 .-u -+NCNJ u N O O -0Q w t I O N N N 0) . c O a - +� m 00 GO 110 Z m u= .0 E GO Q a 0 N N N O C O C OU ro CC0 CC: •''' CO_A L •E o U CL GO ww Y '� O O U U U O o �O •_� U -0E C N m� M Q .,s I 'a Cfii LI m 0) m M^ = CN QCN C 'a O N U O '+� Q a --I N a-i p> C -Z O O '+� p'i N +� a U O N 0) U +� i- a i Q U O N GO r6 N N .o .--i ra w C "" i, pi °U c c N 'a fii •+� N= +� C Q raU :',: C f M C C U: i- O C m O N a 0 N N m 3 O O O Q N N U N E +� Q ra +� O Q N rp i- w , f0 C N 7 U m 7 > +.� Q N U •v U 0) E Vl m E .Z fa E i (c AL E p � N N N U M -a j i O 3 M N a N.-Ll V fl V O 2i C O— E C -a +� O ra 'a ra C N .a •CL j N 0 ) 'a {� O 7 p dJ U N o i > O ra O M O = cn ra i =� O O 3 0 M O ra 2i ' U -u �U C , U o' N -a LU >. Lon, Or p U j� p U O N O� GCO ra p N N to O Q a N Q M Q v tl.0 O N +� U N O a N r6 Q t N p 0 N _ N > t f QLn m ~ 0) W = L •� f- U o F Lon Q J Q M C cV c N p V C O o cyi m o cri cYi c o 3 U-0 a ra a GO U i a -C J U Q 0)m a 'U U V1 a 0 CL O '� o U C O fl- (n Q Q C .2 U 41 0 r M m > a 0 z -0 m u Q a 0 z -0 m u CL a 0 z -0 m u CL a 0 z -0 m u CL a0) 0 z M S rx: 7 1 0 m T 7 3 C X .2 ILI 41• m 'TA 0 0 0 0 z z z z W 7 M 7 7 t.0 0 A .4.0 0 S. -Fa . — bb U CL U a) a) = 0 w w w w w o 4 E - Z� z c c u -0 m a) 0 - — •—U LE 0 CL > > . . ..... . t�: X 0 0 a) 4 > CL CL U .2 > 0 E 0 0 :2 CL u w E. a) c 4-- 0 E cc 0 m 4 .4 n > 0 — 0 o Cr CL M u :3 U a) E a ::3 aj tj 0 W QJ ::3 aj 0 0 a) " 0 O. vi :3 0 U 0 0 m o CL r 0 E aj CL a ai m CL U CL r CL C' E w aj aj . ....... aj aj aj -a Ou 0 u 0 CL E U m J u > m 11) w Q) u Ln M Ln m c b.0 vi Vl 4u, Cr ai -4 0 0 n r- E C3 M U W -0 Ln 0 E W ;C :E b.0 b.0 Q) -T E b.0 c 0 m C o c u m zc QJ LE o Ln -2 CL Q. .2 0 w :2 0 m 0 0 0 Q) E E 0 0 0 aj w aj aj 0 .0 0 U o 0 Q, 0 •CL m 0 m W ��` 0 u aj > — CL CL 0 u Q) 4 2: E aj -00 - 0 '— Ln -0 ' u—r mw cc a"j a>j 2, 0 Lon 0 E > mu S Cm E u LQn) 0 E aj a Q) Q) u Ln w -Ln aj 16 -F,, M CL m u aj Q) Ln aj aj CL E >� -;::; 0 C U CL -0 0 '— C M 0 C " -Z CL 0 " (b u aj 0 W M c CL 0 m U — 17; Ln -0 o -0 C m CL > CL C . — m aj 0 aj c aj M -0 x 0 0 u ate... aj " 'E -gL--n u " U aj 70- Z 0 z ku aj " = Ln L� c c Q) ::3 0 0 m CL C5 .4.) u aj E aj Ln •-C -,e Q, Z Ln aj m , .0 7) Ln O 7) aj M a .4 " 4-- o rz ILI aj aj 6 0 0 r- aj -6 0 - . aj 7) E 0 aj w .4 0 u .4 aj u " I'D Ln u -0 Ln 3: (.0 r6 .2� :t Q) r. 35 T r6 c 2 bD -0 r6 70- bD r- 0 rn c 0 CL r6 0 c m c IL 0 I 0 aj u Ln aj 0 > Q rz CL . c u aj > Q " CL m Q>) u aj CL aj -6 rz U CL o Q� w ai C2L E a CL m > -a CL auj 0 -§ -C , ki -§ , 0 E 0 0 u u aj C"L '� Q"' 0 0 W -0 t�: OTC a N \W U W X W W C y g 0 U N C U c-a N C C buL `^ a v U Q a 0 z v U CL Q a 0 z v U CL Q a 0 z ++ c t U b.0 N w 0 'a N O N C O ++ h.0 0 7 O> b.0 m Q O N N ?�. -a c0 c�.� N N m O O u++ .`� L f0 f0 Q ++ C (n X L �' Q '++ = Q C > 7 O NL NECNmO Y > f0 ++ by M S =X C O • E -0 = Q O ZI m O CL U" +� c bu O ' o np co O :3 ao O > f0 Y Y O -a U O }J N L o •> O N C O >i "a j L u f0 D O v ns o N O U= a U •41 O bA N m 0 m O Q- C L 70 O f0 "a m w Q L1 L O N N N -a en "a � O 7 N U •++ C bA �n N C N N N C N s o v v u m +' bb C O C O C O (6 Q)�„ m ++ H O "a o> OU m U m z z z C L C N Q- L O OL o C N c C O �, C W f6 N u"a ++ U •� fO N M N N pp U fO L o L f6 Q Qj w 0 L —_ v to i a 0 E m" LO Q- m +' CL to E m C c C O m 7 X 6 w C:O O Q "a — 70 O E O U N L �O C N o L v u "a ++ -a — f0 o N j ++ Q C C {n ++ Q N L N U C O> O M �� •O .0 b.0 f6 Q >z L) O ++ .0 N N to U io to C > o o a M O o +' c c N O Q E o O o ,o E m C C ++ f0 bA •U "a L C O C aj +' O— O cM C N U o L U t o L o 7 N, 6- O Q CL "a L Y Q)(6 O U 0 t (O H cn a Uf� +� a a o Q 3 a n a n o v v 0 u— 0_ v� u .c c o u Q)v t •° Q) .� u c t af6o 3 3 v u o .c u o° •� n ns Q o o N N 6 Q, to O o Q) Q)E Q")L o Q) O to c L E Ln> O to Y f6 Q) o OL C C N �n O u >� CL L "a ++ > Q C U C o 0 Q N O ate — i f6 0 -a ++ O U � c0 E v c O t •+j -0 v E Q t E o Q to m v C O °'0 c c 3 '++ O U� U N LE +�+ O ++ O +�+ > O O Q C m v U O N. E O U+' C m ++ +t+ u m > Ln 0 �� LO , t C O bA O OU p — N L bA >i bA .E "a f0 N ++ bA > -a ++ > f0 N i u m O a C u bA —_ +� o v f6 v t .+' E �, O v E t O +� x m> CL E "a "a 7 m .� N U to -a "a E U ++ -a C ++ � N E m N C N N >i +� CO 0 m a a ++ > i U 0 O 7 Lw O o -a i f0 'n U} O LL> H m o U 7 v U U o o U V >i "a U >i C O U U Q)ns C Q)++ Q)+L+ U vi Q) 'E N m Q N C— m U c +, C N U o Q c L ao o Q= v E n v-0 v L �, ++ Q {n C m vi N yF Q)M Z m U C •� "a O Mo f0 +�+ > > O ++ O b.N H m t t +� L O N U c C L C m 7 — M U o t m "a U N {n N ++ ?� -0 w +m+ m *' L ++ en N D Q O_ U ++ 1p m to O C >' f6 � 1p ++ ++ 7 L +' to O N N lD f0 L N 5 O L bA M C 1p Q m O L L .- ++ +' 0 C +' OU O c0 � E U O Q U �b.0 Q,� o . u o 3 tCo O O —' u O u °' ° C N O Y v v o o C 0 f6 a N E i U ° O a C ° 3 O 3 a 3 cn co H cn u Q 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the environmental consequences that could result from implementation of the Bouquet Canyon Project (project). The project consists of a new residential community of 375 for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, public trails, public parks, private recreation, and landscape elements on approximately 73,474.66 acres of undeveloped land. A major project component includes the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Avenue, and the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road that would provide a more direct alignment to existing segments north and south of the project site, consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the project includes the channelization of a portion of the flood zone in the northeastern portion of the site while retaining the natural stream course for low flows. A complete project description is contained within Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR. This EIR has been prepared to meet all the substantive and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) as amended; the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.); and the City of Santa Clarita's rules, regulations, and procedures for the implementation of CEQA. The City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency for this project, with primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review process and approving or denying the project. In enacting CEQA, the California State legislature declared its intent regarding the purposes of an EIR in Section 21002.1 of the CEQA Statute, as follows: 1) Serve as an informational document that will inform the City's decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental impacts of the project. 2) Identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects and consider reasonable alternatives that could avoid or reduce one or more of the significant environmental effects that may be identified with respect to the project. 3) Obligate the City to impose measures identified in the EIR to avoid or mitigate potentially significant effects, whenever it is feasible to do so. 4) Grant the City the right to approve a project, despite identification of potential significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated due to economic, social, or other conditions. 5) Provide meaningful public disclosure, in a timely and cost-effective manner, of the potential environmental effects that the City considers to be significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines a significant effect to the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the project's environmental setting, identifies various community -based and private real estate -based objectives the proposed plan aims to achieve, describes the land use, design, and infrastructure elements of the development plan, outlines the proposed construction program and time frames, and lists the various discretionary land use approvals required to permit the project to proceed. 2.1 PROJECTTITLE AND SUMMARY The proposed project is the "Bouquet Canyon Project." Throughout this EIR, it will be simply referred to as the "project." Located in the Saugus area, along the northern edge of the City of Santa Clarita, the project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course known as Bouquet Creek flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. Development of 375 for -sale homes is proposed in five distinct neighborhoods, along with extensive site improvements including internal streets and driveways, storm drainage, water, and sewer facilities, electrical and natural gas facilities, private recreation areas, public parkland and trails, and a reconfiguration of Bouquet Creek and its adjacent floodplain to provide flood control within the project and maintain regular stream flows already occurring. This project also includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. This is intended to facilitate local and regional travel through a more direct route, compared to the existing long curve that forms the northern and western borders of the site. The total development footprint would cover approximately ;8 acres. Figure 2-1 illustrates the proposed development plan. Land clearance, grading, and the construction of all site improvements and homes is tentatively estimated to occur over a period of five years, with homes to be sold in phases in response to market demand. For purposes of the analyses conducted for this EIR, it is presumed that all homes will be sold and occupied, and all elements of the project completed and functional by approximately 2025. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located along the northern city limits, between the San Gabriel Mountains to the southeast and the Angeles National Forest to the north. The Topatopa Mountains are west of the western city limits and the Santa Susana Mountains are southwest of the city limits. Castaic Lake is 7.5 miles to the northwest, and Lake Piru is 14.6 miles to the west. The Santa Clara River is 1.9 miles to the south. Interstate 5 is approximately 5.6 miles to the west and State Highway 14 is 4.5 miles to the southeast. Figure 2-2 illustrates the project's location in a regional setting. The project site isjust south of the junction of Copper Hill Drive and Bouquet Canyon Road and north of the intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road. Figure 2-3 illustrates the project location within the Saugus area. Bouquet Canyon Road forms the northern and western site boundaries. Bouquet Canyon Road, Plum Canyon Road, and Copper Hill Drive provide the main travel routes to and from the rest of the city and the outlying freeway network. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Area 4: Rowtowns with Carriage Units. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, with 4-7 attached homes in each "row." Each home would have its own attached garage. Four plans are proposed, with 1-3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and approximately 721-1,521 square feet of total building area. Table 2.0-1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HOUSING UNITS BY PLANNING AREA PlanningArea and Proposed Housing Type Square Footage Range # of Housing Units 1 and 1A: Single -Family Detached with Driveways 2,307-2,543 64 2: Single -Family Detached — 8 Pack Cluster 1,498-1,801 136 3: Attached Backyard Towns 1,606-1,679 90 4: Rowtowns with Carriage Units 721-1,521 85 Tota I: 375 Source: Integral Communities, October 2019 Infrastructure Streets. This project proposes off -site and on -site street improvements, as follows. A� tart; Ba:uuafuu�:r:ya: Idauira�fira�:* arlN'm uur.......aftd-a-A.new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road would be constructed from approximately 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road to approximately 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element objectives for this major travel route. The Circulation Element classifies Bouquet Canyon Road as a Secondary Highway, ultimately with four travel lanes between Plum Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road. The new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road included in this project would be constructed as a four -lane roadway, with bicycle lanes and parkways on both sides. ..alriialra a*ilii„ir Il: ou.ua ............................:T..u....u....a.....*............tC........a........i.n......g..'Ap....o........i.r...�........I.f.......o.......g.d would Iraal aro.raa firoirrroCoto u.st east of Davii Wa.......y ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................k......a........i.r...�....a...�.... tlhua* a*xiistiiirI . iinteir sectiion o� 11) vied Wa air�a� Il:�ou.ua u.ua*t Cain oir� Il�oaa� would ba* a*Iliimiiir�ata*a� air�a� ira* Ilaca*d b airy g......................................................................................................................................................................................................................J................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................p................................................................ a*xte.r)siioir] of Co.pplllRoad firoiru D.avi�.Wa osI"oii.rBou.u..a.*...rj ....Road. ..............Ca.in ............................................................... ..................................................................................................................o................................... A private, on -site vehicle circulation network is proposed to provide access to homes within each planning area and access to/from Bouquet Canyon Road. Access from existing and proposed Bouquet Canyon Road would be provided to the various planning areas, as follows: • A cul-de-sac is proposed directly opposite Pam Court, to provide access to nine homes in the northern part of Planning Area 1. • A cul-de-sac is proposed immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial site, to provide access to 12 homes in Planning Area 1A. • A two-lane, gated entry street would be located between Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This entry street would link to the internal street network serving Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 and a total of 269 homes. • A driveway would be located a few hundred feet east of David Way, to provide access to the 85 homes in Planning Area 4. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Drainage. An engineered storm drainage system is proposed to collect and treat runoff from the developed site and provide enhanced flood control protection along Bouquet Creek, which would eliminate much of the existing floodplain conditions in that area. For further details, please refer to Section 3.9 in this EIR. Main elements of the proposed drainage system include: • A new drainage channel to run parallel to Bouquet Creek, designed to contain 100-year and other higher intensity storm flows. This channel would be constructed Access roads would be .................................. built along both sides to facilitate regular and emergency maintenance operations. • Infiltration basins, biofiltration basins, debris/desilting basins, a continuous deflective separation unit, and storage pipes to collect and treat site runoff. Infiltration basins would be located at the western end of Planning Area 4 and along the east side of the northern terminus of the new Bouquet Canyon Road, between the new road and the athletic field in the adjacent Los Angeles County Probation Camp Joseph Scott. Biofiltration basins would be located in the northern piece of Planning Area 1, where the proposed cul-de-sac enters from old Bouquet Canyon Road, immediately north of the new "Y" intersection of old and new Bouquet Canyon Roads, and in the southern portion of the project site in Planning Area 1a to the south of the new "Y" intersection of old and new Bouquet Canyon Roads. • In -street, underground drainage lines to collect runoff from the developed areas for conveyance into the proposed concrete -sided drainage channel north of Planning Area 2. Water and Sewer. The project would connect to existing water mains maintained by the Santa Clarita Valley Water agency, Santa Clarita Water Division, located in Bouquet Canyon Road to the north and south of the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This connection would provide potable water service to an on -site, underground water distribution system to serve all of the homes' interior plumbing fixtures and for all outdoor irrigation applications. The project would need to annex into LACSD, to authorize discharge of wastewater from throughout the project site to LACSD's trunk sewer, referred to as the 24-inch Bouquet Canyon Relief Sewer, located in Bouquet Canyon Road, south of Seco Canyon Road. The project would be required to construct a new sewer main, located in Bouquet Canyon Road, to convey the project's wastewater flows to LACSD's trunk sewer. A private system of underground sewers would collect wastewater generated at the homes and recreation centers for conveyance into the new sewer main. Energy and Communications. Electrical energy would be provided throughout the residential planning areas via a connection to Southern California Edison's facilities, located in Copper Hill Drive and Bouquet Canyon Road. A portion of each home's electrical demand would be met with on -site solar photovoltaic panels, pursuant to California's 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 of the California Code of Regulations), which take effect on January 1, 2020. Natural gas service would be provided to all homes and the two recreation centers via a connection to Southern California Gas Company's transmission main lines, located in Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive. The project would also install underground cables to enable connections within each planning area to telecommunications services from a local provider of such services. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-17 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Open Spaces, Landscaping and Amenities A variety of private and public amenities are included in the proposed project. This includes two private recreation centers (one in Planning Area 1 and another in Planning Area 2), with in -ground swimming pools and hot tubs, outdoor decks, barbeques, building spaces for social gatherings, and restrooms/changing areas. Two private, open turf/play areas are proposed as outdoor amenities within Planning Area 4. Common landscape areas would be planted within the perimeters of each planning area, and between rows of homes in Planning Areas 3 and 4. An extensive landscaping program is proposed, including community open spaces, street trees and parkways along streets, recreational turf areas, native and manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, creek riparian enhancements, stormwater management and private yards. Figure 2-10 illustrates the proposed landscape plan. An interconnected public walking trail network is proposed around the site perimeter, behind (south edge of) Planning Area 4, through Planning Area 1, and around and up to the top of the hill formation in the western part of the site, as depicted on Figure 2-1, Proposed Development Plan. A linear public park, with turf areas, ornamental landscape elements, a tot lot, and seating areas, is proposed within the segment of Bouquet Canyon Road that is to be abandoned, between Ikalb Q:H.1Ft-afHd--;f,ir,�a,irrr�,,,,iiu.ist east of Pam Court;t..Q. wl a*ira* tl a* iro o a*a a*xta*ir�siioir� ofCo a*ir II-liillll Il.)iJve wou.�lla "oiin IBou.ua u.�a*t Cain o!E� If1oaa . A public parking lot .........I�..............p..................................................................................................................................lC�..IC�.......................................................................................................................11...................................................J................................................�.................................................... p p g with adjacent open turf areas, is proposed along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, between the east edge of Planning Area 3 and the eastern end of the new drainage channel, near the northeast corner of the site. This would grant public access to the on -site public trail network. The northernmost knoll feature in the western part of the site is to be preserved in its natural landform condition, and this feature and adjacent lowland along Bouquet Canyon Road would be the most prominent open space element within the project site. A low -flow "restored to natural" drainage channel, parallel to the proposed main flood control channel, is proposed as a 30-foot wide, landscaped open space corridor to be constructed in the primary drainage zone between Planning Areas 2 and 4. The public trail network described above would provide visual access to the open space along the drainage zone, and walking access along and to the knolltop. Construction Program Construction of the project would entail several main phases and durations, over an estimated 60-month time frame, as summarized in Table 2.0-2, below. Construction would occur in the indicated sequence; however, there could be some overlap between phases, where feasible, to shorten the overall construction process. The grading plan would entail approximately 2,070,000 cubic yards of earth work, to be balanced across the site. Table 2.0-2 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Construction Phase Duration (Months) Site Clearing/Mass Grading of Entire Site 12 Site Improvements (streets, underground utilities) 6 Off -Site Improvements (new Bouquet Canyon Road, drainage basins, slopes, new flood channel) 6 Home Construction and Landscaping 36 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0-18 3.1 AESTHETICS gabled rooflines, variations in roof levels, articulation on the front facade with through window molding, covered entries, and variation in building materials. The homes would be constructed as two-story rowhomes in three-plex, four-plex, five-plex, six-plex, and seven-plex clusters. The homes would be constructed in a traditional style, with stucco and wood siding exteriors, asphalt tile roofs with Craftsman design elements along the roofline, and natural material (stone and wood) accents (see Project Description, Figure 2-9 for architectural renderings of the two-story rowhomes). The rooflines of the homes would reach a maximum of 35 feet high. Such designs are consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for residential development in the Saugus Community (Santa Clarita 2009). The homes in this visualization are located in what would be become Planning Area 4, which includes attached, single-family homes located north of Bouquet Creek and south of Bouquet Canyon Road. One cluster of six attached homes, visible in this view simulation, would be oriented to face Bouquet Canyon Road, with attached garages behind the homes. Ten additional clusters of between three and seven attached homes would be oriented perpendicular to Bouquet Canyon Road. The inew Ihoinnes_ ouII_d irest a irnniiirniiirnnuirnn of 20 feet firoinn the futuire soutlheirined.e In inew..Co12.........IJJ1lRoad corrector............1..e..................................................................................... and a irnniiirniiirnnuirnn of 00 feet firoinn the exiisdirn. inoirtIn iris ed.e of IE:3ou uet Cairn cain IFt ad. l�lhe t iicA PA-4 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................�s...................................................................................................................................................................................................................1........................................... stiructuirA setback wound irarn.e betwee2 30 and 40 feet firoinn the irnew Co eir II -.-lull Road connector ............................................................................................................................................! A.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................P.P............................................................................................................... soutlheirrn cuirlta and 80+ feet firoirnfl the e.x......i..s........i.i.r.... ...in.o......r.......heiri...edmeo...3.............C.a.r...................-t22j.................................ve..o .........................................................................................................................................................................................�..t.............................. ....f.E....g.u.e...n......e...n..t.... fteviiew a Iliicatiiorn wound lb ire uiiired foir each I{�Ilairniniiirn. Airea with a irovall Ia the Coinflinfluiniit ...........................................................................................................9................................................................................................................. F...................................................................12.12.................................... y..............................................................................!. If.�evello��irnfleirnt If.�iiirectcair.:l� "- IEgr A short span of the ridgeline on the west side of the project site would remain visible to motorists at the intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and David Way, above the roofline of the two -level homes. Viewing location D is located at the northeast corner of the project site, along Bouquet Canyon Road, looking southwest onto the project site. This view is characterized by tree clusters, overhead power lines, and the street surface in the foreground, with a mosaic of vegetation forms in the middle ground, and the slopes and ridgeline of the site's most prominent landform in the background. With implementation of the proposed project, the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would become a dominant visual feature in the fore- and middle grounds, with landscape and building elements of the developed site prominent to the right of the roadway surface and portions of the on -site hillsides and ridgeline remaining highly visible in the background. The limited views of the creek area would be replaced by the roadway surface, which would bridge across the creek, and the buildings and new landscape elements within future Planning Areas 2 and 3. Homes within the eastern edge of Planning Areas 2 and 3 would be distantly visible from this location, partially obstructed from view by new landscaping elements to be planted as part of the project. These homes would also be visually buffered for westbound travelers by the reconstructed and revegetated creek corridor that would extend between Planning Areas 3 and 4, through the entire width of the project site. The homes in Planning Area 2 would be single-family detached constructed in a Mediterranean style, with light-colored, stucco exteriors, tile roofs, and stone and wood accents (see Project Description, Figure 2-7 for architectural renderings of the proposed homes). Homes in Planning Area 3 would be multi- family, backyard towns constructed in California ranch and Craftsman styles, with light-colored, stucco exteriors, asphalt shingle roofs, and stone and wood accents (see Project Description, Figure 2-8 for architectural renderings of the proposed homes). Homes in both planning areas would be two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet and would be consistent with the Community Character and Design City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-30 3.2 AIR QUALITY 3.2 AIR QUALITY This section addresses the air emissions generated by the construction and operation of the project and the potential impacts to air quality. The analysis also addresses the consistency of the project with the air pollution reduction strategies set forth within the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP). The analysis of project -generated air emissions focuses on whether the project would cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard or SCAQMD significance thresholds. For the purposes of air emissions associated with mobile sources, traffic information contained in the Bouquet Canyon Residential EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Stantec and dated March 2020 was used in this analysis (see Appendix IU116„). Emissions modeling worksheets are provided in Appendix B of this EIR. 3.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.2.1.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Geography The City of Santa Clarita (City) is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), a 6,600-square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area of Riverside County. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area's natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin. Climate The general region lies in the semi -permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. The climate consists of a semiarid environment with mild winters, warm summers, moderate temperatures, and comfortable humidity. Precipitation is limited to a few winter storms. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The average annual temperature varies little throughout the Basin, averaging 75 degrees Fahrenheit However, with a less -pronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the Basin show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the Basin have had recorded temperatures over 100°F in recent years. Although the Basin has a semi -arid climate, the air near the surface is moist due to the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent, and low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as "high fog," are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the Basin. Precipitation in the City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 3.2 AIR QUALITY would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the site. Energy Source Emissions Energy source emissions (i.e. generated at the site of the power generation source) would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non -hearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. It should be noted that the project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards which requires more efficient lighting and rooftop solar panels for new residential projects. Mobile Source Emissions Project related operational air quality impacts are derived predominantly from mobile sources. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Mobile source air quality impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the site vicinity. The operational air quality impacts are derived primarily from vehicle trips generated by the project. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix -LJ.) the project would generate approximately 3, w :..092,daily vehicle trips. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, SOx, PM1o, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form 03 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOx, PM1o, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Operational Emissions Summary The project's long-term operational emissions estimates were calculated using the CalEEMod model; refer to Appendix B. This model predicts ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM1o, and PM2.5 emissions from area, energy, and mobile traffic sources associated with the proposed land uses. Table 3.2-5 Long -Term Operational Air Emissions, presents the anticipated operational source emissions for the project. As indicated, the operational emissions from the project would not exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for criteria air emissions. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Table 3.2-5 LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL AIR EMISSIONS Scenario Emissions (pounds per day)1,3 VOC NO. 77 CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Project Summer Emissions2 Area Source 10.72 5.81 32.50 0.04 0.61 0.61 Energy Source 0.12 1.03 0.45 0.01 0.08 0.08 Mobile 5.86 25.39 79.24 0.32 28.87 7.88 Total Maximum Daily Emissions 16.70 32.22 112.19 0.37 29.57 8.57 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Project Winter Emissions2 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-19 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES include a description of the mitigation site, seed/bulb collection and planting methods, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and performance standards to measure the success of the mitigation. Slender mariposa lily bulbs shall be collected at the end of the growing season and prior to ground disturbance, or seeds shall be obtained from a native plant nursery if available. The seeds/bulbs shall be planted within an appropriate on -site or off -site mitigation area, which will be conserved as open space in perpetuity. Payment into a mitigation bank i fee that k@s... „.,..:.;..iis rare plant species. Preservation of land that contains the rare plant species. Timing/Implementation: Plan check and prior to grading Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division MM 3.3-2 Burrowing Owl Avoidance In compliance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), a take avoidance survey shall be conducted on the study area within 14 days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of burrowing owl. If the take avoidance survey is negative and burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground -disturbing activities shall be allowed to commence, and no further mitigation would be required. If burrowing owl is observed during the take avoidance survey, active burrows shall be avoided by the project in accordance with the CDFW's Staff Report. The CDFW shall be immediately informed of any burrowing owl observations. A Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by CDFW prior to initiating ground disturbance. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur September 1 through January 31, outside of the nesting season. Timing/Implementation: Prior to ground disturbance Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Clarita, Building and Planning Divisions Impact 3.3-b The proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 28.68 acres of native plant -dominated habitat and 55.55 acres of habitat dominated by non-native species and previously disturbed areas. The elderberry savanna and southern willow scrub/giant reed stand habitats on the project site are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW (totaling 1.26 acres) and would be permanently impacted by the proposed project. However, both habitats are considered low quality due to their size and the presence of invasive species. Although southern willow scrub/giant reed stand is considered low -quality habitat, the project would offset permanent impacts to 0.70 acres through compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional streambed impacts as outlined in mitigation measure MM 3.3-3. Therefore, with implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-17 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Date Location Magnitude 1952 14km NNW of Tehachapi 5.6 1952 19km N of Tehachapi 5.6 1952 22km N of Tehachapi 5.6 1952 6km SSE of Arvin 5.5 1952 13km ENE of Grapevine 5.6 1952 13km WNW of Grapevine 5.8 1952 6km WNW of Grapevine 7.5 1926 Southern California 5.5 1916 Southern California 5.5 1916 Central California 6.0 1899 Southern California 6.4 1894 Southern California 5.9 1893 Santa Barbara Channel 5.5 1855 Greater Los Angeles area 6.0 Source: Petra Geosciences, Inc., 2019 (Appendix E of this Draft EIR) Notes: 1) Maximum free -field site accelerations based on published accelerogram data for USGS CSMIP Station No. 707, located approximately 2.8 kilometers southwest of the subject site. 2) Maximum site acceleration based on the published accelerogram data for CGS CSMIP Station No. 13079, located approximately 5.6 kilometers north of the subject site. 3) Maximum site acceleration based on the published accelerogram data for CGS CSMIP Station No. 13326, located approximately 2 kilometers southwest of the subject site. 4) Site acceleration was estimated based on the results of a computerized database search using a software application developed by T.F. Blake (Egsearch V3.0, 2000). For purposes of the computerized site acceleration estimates, the attenuation relationship developed by Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) for hard rock sites was considered appropriate. 5) Based on Wald et al, 1999. 3.6.1.6 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE Indications of a fault rupture were found in Petra's Boring FA-10, located along the north edge of the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in the eastern part of proposed Planning Area 3. of I le..I�9 AI�',li.".I 9 " � �'..��'I I�19111u,'� I 1 9.,. dhls "'„° 11o1 P.III 9CIV`a'tl 9G1 . i,4Gtt , t Wifl•i•eE4 4� �•W;.�..4; 4`1ei: 1l 3.6.1.7 SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE Strong ground motion can cause different types of ground failure. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, settlement, differential materials response, slope failures, sympathetic movement on weak bedding planes or non -causative faults, shattered ridge effects, and ground lurching are some of the many types of ground failure that can result from seismically induced strong ground motion. Petra's investigations determined that liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landslides are of primary concern within the project site. Liquefaction and lateral spreading are caused in ground that is usually water -saturated and made of loose to moderately dense, fine to medium sands. During strong ground motion, the sands temporarily lose strength and behave like a viscous fluid. As the sand settles, the fluid -like substance can flow down gradients, causing lateral spreading, and push water toward the surface in the form of sand boils and sand City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-7 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 3.6.4 METHODOLOGY The analysis of impacts related to geology and soils is based, in part, on the Updated Geotechnical EIR- Level Assessment, Bouquet Canyon Project, Tentative Tract Map No. 82126, Southerly Adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive, Santa Clarita, California, prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc., which is available in Appendix E of this Draft EIR. Information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this assessment are based on site -specific data, which includes information obtained from the drilling of borings at the project site followed by laboratory testing of the material obtained therein. The Petra report used resources and followed guidance available from the US Geological Survey, the 2016 CBC, the Earthquake Hazards Zone Maps and the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map produced by CGS, the California Division of Mines and Geology's Guidelines for Geologic/Seismic Considerations in EIRs, the City of Santa Clarita's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Santa Clarita 2015), and other available resources. The Petra report also used and includes a list of 23 other literature references. R.T. Frankian and Associates performed a professional peer review of the Petra report on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita. The analysis of paleontological resources is based on a Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check conducted by Dr. Samuel A. McLeod of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. That research is also provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR. 3.6.5 ANALYSIS Impact 3.6-a.i: No State -mapped earthquake faults occur within the project site. An indication of a fault rupture was identified during l.ni.�il. al.........site geotechnical investigations. After subsQllli�.aliQ�aliall wllwQ�'f'tlhllw'feat 0..�1Q II'�was Q�Q'tQI111llliQQ�II'tIIwIiQ�'taliactllvQ ...........................................................................................................................N...n............................................................................................................................................. .....................k............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. faullt tI a e. '�Ii�Q. irQ. foire �I�Qr Q� Q Qt wou.�lld Ifs � Qrsu.�11� Illf� a sll�lf�ll�il ant III aQt II If1v�llvlllf�. ..................................................................N..................................................................k................................II.:.:............................................................................................................................................................................................R..'N.....................................................................N''...........................................................................R..'N. c.�a,n tiru;.,c ii,�a„irk.....o.,irk....q..!r...irk,ear......irp..... ,ct,ii,ya:r...:f u;.,11.:t......:ThIf �u- .....ii 3ny.....lr 4 4 nfh3et.n.„....: . Discussion City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-12 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS As mentioned previously, the project site does not intersect any known active earthquake faults. According to mapping from the CGS, no such fault exists in close proximity to the site; the nearest is the San Gabriel fault, which is 3.5 miles to the southwest of the proposed site. A fault feature was found along the north edge of the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in the eastern part of proposed Planning Area 3, during Petra's investigation. A...s.uj„Ib e.s ine*ir t iilr ya* t iioirl found that tli�Q Iro Q 4 t wiIte II s not tirainsected b alr� aQ tIIVQ '�a0..�llt tlraca* w. II hQ II"Q �oll"Q" w'�II"0...uQ;t0...�11"Q.. sartll�ac..k olr ................................................................................................p...............II.........................................................................................................................................................................y.....................y..........................................................................................................................................................................................�.......................................................................................................................................r IrQrstl IlQtllolris Ira* aka*d to fau.� t aQtll0�11� wll Ir�ot %Qr IrQrQ gj.irQrd and theIra.* wou.�ld not The a sll..lr�llf can Illr� a4t ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................y..................................................................................................................................k.............................................................................................................................................................................................g.....................................................................1C.................. itnvolil�guonruc ori�hiiiriorogi...ir.iya: al.....�_.....„.......... ....:.....: Y Y.. y MMMM Y Impact 3.6-a.ii: The project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Compliance with the seismic design criteria required by the City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-13 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS unfound paleontological resources, mitigation measure 3.6- .2 will be implemented to require targeted monitoring of excavation work by a qualified paleontologist who can identify fossil materials and provide instructions to avoid and recover those materials. With this measure, significant impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided. Unique Geologic Feature The Santa Clarita Valley contains diverse topography and prominent ridgelines. The ridgeline on the western side of the project site is a General Plan -designated significant ridgeline (Santa Clarita 2011, p. CO-7). This ridgeline is approximately 100 to 180 feet above the flat central portion of the project site. As described in Section 2.0 Project Description of this Draft EIR, a portion of this ridgeline would be graded to allow the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road to be built. There are no other unique geologic features found on -site. Although the ridgeline is classified as significant in the Santa Clarita General Plan, there are other, more substantial ridgelines surrounding the project site, as discussed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics. Because the project would alter a portion but retain a majority of the ridgeline, and because there are other larger and more distinct ridgelines adjacent to the project site, the project would not have a significant impact on a unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measures MM 3.6-3;2 The developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standards to develop a monitoring program for the project site in areas where Castaic and Saugus Formation sedimentary layers are exposed or are likely to be exposed during project construction. The qualified paleontologist shall provide technical and compliance oversight of all work as it relates to paleontological resources and shall be authorized to stop work where potential paleontological resources are discovered to provide an opportunity to examine, recover, and characterize such materials. Additionally, the qualified paleontologist shall conduct construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training at the project kickoff meeting, prior to ground -disturbing activities. Any significant paleontological resources collected during project -related excavations shall be curated into an accredited repository. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report for submittal to the City that documents the results of the monitoring effort and any discoveries. Timing/Implementation: Develop monitoring program prior to grading. Monitor during grading. Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division Level of Impact Significance Following Mitigation: Potential impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-19 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section identifies and quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions directly or indirectly associated with the project and analyzes project compliance with applicable plans, policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions calculations worksheets are provided in Appendix B. For the purposes of GHG emissions associated with mobile sources, traffic information contained in the Bouquet Canyon Residential EIR Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Stantec and dated March 2020 was used; refer to Appendix I I, Traffic Impact Analysis. 3.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS California is a substantial contributor of GHGs, emitting over 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) per year (CEC 2019).1 Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the Earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well -mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human -caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N20) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre -industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre -industrial period range. As of April 2018, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 410 ppm (SCRIPPS 2019). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of CO2eq concentrations of about 450 ppm or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2 degrees Celsius (°C), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (IPCC 2015). While a localized temperature change of 2°C may not seem serious, it has grave consequences on a global scale because this temperature increase directly impacts the sustainability of water, food supplies, ecosystems, coastal stability, and public health (e.g., heatstroke and lung damage due to increased smog) (IPCC 2015; CDOJ 2019). 3.7.1.1 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE The study area for climate change and the analysis of GHG emissions is broad as climate change is influenced by world-wide emissions and their global effects. However, the study area is also limited by i Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) - A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their Global Warming Potential. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-1 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS regional, and local plans for GHG reduction. A consistency analysis is provided below and describes the project's compliance with performance -based standards included in the regulations outlined in the applicable portions of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan. Quantification of Emissions In view of the above considerations, this EIR quantifies the project's total annual GHG emissions for informational purposes, taking into account the GHG emission reduction features that would be incorporated into the project's design. The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CaIEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CaIEEMod was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California, who provided data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) to accountfor local requirements and conditions. The model is considered by the SCAQMD to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects throughout California. 3.7.5 ANALYSIS Impact 3.7-a The project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.7-b The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project involves constructing 375 for -sale homes, comprising different types of housing units, along with supporting utility and street infrastructure, recreational amenities and landscaping. Project -related GHG emissions would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. The project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N20, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct Project -related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions (passenger cars and trucks). CaIEEMod relies upon trip data within the project's Traffic Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix #-D and project -specific land use data to calculate emissions. Table 3.7-1, Projected Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N20, and CH4 emissions of the project. CaIEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix B. Direct Project -Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Construction Emissions. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of a project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. As shown in Table 3.7-1, the project would result in 129.58 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2eq/year) (amortized over 30 years), which represents a total of 3,887.44 MTCO2eq from City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-15 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS construction activities (129.58 MTCO2eq/year multiplied by 30 years). Please note that these emission levels account for the emission reduction benefits of air quality mitigation measures MM 3.2-1 and MM 3.2-2. Area Source. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project -specific land use data. Project -related area sources include exhaust emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, such as lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the site. As noted in Table 3.7-1, the project would result in 85.89 MTCO2eq/year of area source GHG emissions. Mobile Source. The CalEEMod model relies upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Analysis and project - specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. The project -related operational emissions are derived predominantly from mobile sources, i.e. vehicular exhaust. ..... :. B a s e on the project -generated daily vehicle trips, the project would result in approximately 5,248.77 MTCO2eq/year of mobile source -generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 3.7-1. Table 3.7-1 PROJECTED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Source CO2 CH4 N20 Total Metric Tons of COzegz,a Metric Tons/yr1 Metric Tons/yr1 Metric Tons of CO2eg1 Metric Tons/yr1 Metric Tons of CO2eg1 Direct Emissions Construction (amortized over 30 years) 129.10 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00 129.58 Area Source 85.27 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.43 85.89 Mobile Source 5,242.69 0.24 6.08 0.00 0.00 5,248.77 Total Direct EmissionsZ 5,457.06 0.27 6.75 0.00 1 0.43 1 5,464.24 Indirect Emissions Energy4 647.15 0.03 0.71 0.01 2.68 650.54 Water Demand 132.80 0.82 20.59 0.02 6.17 159.57 Solid Waste Disposa14 33.32 1.97 49.23 0.00 0.00 82.56 Total Indirect EmissionsZ 813.28 2.82 70.53 0.03 8.85 892.67 Total Project -Related EmissionsZ 6,356.91 MTCO2eq/yr Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod version 2016.3.2, as recommended by the SCAQMD. 2. Totals maybe slightly off due to rounding. 3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.govlenergy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed April8, 2019. 4. The reduction/credits for operational emissions are based on 2019 Title 24 standards which include rooftop solar panel installation. Refer to Appendix B, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Worksheets, for detailed model input/output data. Source: Michael Baker International, 2019 Indirect Project -Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and project -specific land use data. Electricity would be provided to the site via Southern California Edison (SCE). The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-16 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY would enter the Filterra system through a curb -inlet opening or pipe and flow through a specially -designed filter media mixture in a landscaped concrete container. The filter media would capture and mobilize pollutants, which would then be decomposed, volatilized, and incorporated into the biomass of the system's micro/macro fauna and flora. Stormwater runoff would then flow through the media and into an underdrain system at the bottom of the container, where the treated water would be discharged. The combination of the treatment control BMPs identified above would have a high removal effectiveness on the pollutants of concern. Other project features identified in the USMP include the following: • Channelization of Bouquet Creek to allow off -site upstream flows to go through the project site for treatment prior to being discharged to Bouquet Creek; • Storm drain system stenciling and signage; and • On -going inspection and maintenance of the proposed infiltration and biofiltration basins and CDS and Filterra units. Therefore, in compliance with the City's Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control requirements, including implementation of treatment control BMPs, project operation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As such, the project would result in a less -than -significant impact related to surface or groundwater quality. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Impact 3.9-b The project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Discussion There is no groundwater production occurring at the project site; therefore, there would be no disruption to any existing groundwater production from the project site. Although the proposed project would require extensive grading due to the steep slopes and the ridgeline that define the topography of the western side of the project site, the proposed project would not include any subterranean levels that would require deep excavation that would potentially encounter groundwater. As described above, when measured by soil borings in October and November 2018, the groundwater table was encountered at a depth of 45 and 50 feet bgs. The structural footings and other underground elements to be constructed for the proposed residential community would not extend to this level. The developed project would receive all of its water from a piped water system, connected to a Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency water transmission main. As such, the project would not require groundwater withdrawal. In addition, the City's Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SCMC Chapter 17.95) requires that each project develop and implement a mitigation plan to lessen the water quality impacts of the project by using smart growth practices and BMPs and integrate LID design principles to mimic pre -development hydrology conditions through infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainfall harvest, and use. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-14 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project would create new impervious surfaces throughout the site, where none exist today, j1r] tJh e. a majority of the site's drainage area (approximately 72%) would consist of pervious surfaces, comprised of vegetated slopes, landscaped community open space areas, private yards, parkways, recreation turf areas, etc, where infiltration would occur during rainstorms. Bouquet Creek, within the project site, would be maintained as a natural (unpaved and vegetated) drainage course and would continue toprovide groundwater rechargaoitdoes today. City of Santa Clawta Bouquet Canyon Project xnm2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9'15 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a faired iruinoff was estiiinflated Ibased yin Ihiistoiriicall irecii iitadorn data irurnoff volluinnes firoirnn SIIIKAI(�D the i.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I..................I....................................................... X........................................................................................................................................... X.................... siize of the stoirirnnwateir ireteindoirn Ilbasiiin and the esdirnated iiirnffltiratiioirn irate wiitlh�iiirn subareas:i.00A 300A .......................................................................................................................................................................................k...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................k.. and 400A ireteindoirn lbasiiirns. Pirecii iitatiioirn iruirnoffr was calculated lb ( SIIIKAIN[ foir Subareas 00A 300A and .........................................................................................................................................................1...................................................................................................................................................8.................................................................................................................................X............................X...................... �� as ireseinted iirn the Urban Stoirirnnwateir Vt/liitii . atiioirn Plain. [:Wirnoffr wiitlh�iiirn Subarea :i.00A wiillll Ilbe ca faired ....................................................................................................................................................................................! A............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ iiirn a 0.5-acire lbasiiirn with a inflaxiiinfluinfl ca aciit of :TI....75 acire.ft. [:Wirnoffr wiitlh�iiirn Subarea 300A wiillll The capfaired .................y.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... iiirn a 0.09-acire lbasiiirn with a irnflaxiiirnfluirnfl caI ..aciiof 0.38 acire.-ft. [:WiroffwitlhiiirSubarea 400A.wil.11..be..ca uired ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................t...................... ii.im_a. 0.03.:::a_cire...lbasiiin with a. Irrnaxii.inrnu.ui n ca.�racii�y �� Q�.G�B 2_�ir�.::f:�.:.. The lbasiiirns wiillll The uirnlliiirned and (located or..tlhe cain D3Draior .noa.....u.nEhi�i .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................ data rooted alcove the Ibasiiins sire assuinfled to (have ais iiinfiilltiratiioin irate of 8.Oft(/da wlhiiclh translates to a ...................................................................................X......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................d................%..k....................................................................................................� coirnlbii.im.ed...lr clu.alrge...c .1p. Limy..:folr...Itbcatllu...lb�.shim.s...of..5..G�...ac.ire.::����ay.. I��im..:fu�(III..... .:.3.asedy..n a.�.Bak...f.....ow h. .d.......r.......o$iic..sinssiis �..S.IK Ia.G.�inclhI:iitatiioireveint wiitlhiiirSulbaireas...00 k...................................�.......k.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3G�G� and 3G�G� wound k.$eneirate �.�� G�.3� aired 0.07 acire.ft of wateir undeir Pirol'ect condiitiioirns ........................ k............................................................................................... #. A............................................................... k........................... X.................................................................................................................................................................................................0...................................................................... k. Tres ectiivell . IE::stiiirnnated iruirnoffr was Ilbased orn tlh�e iro oirtiioirn of irnneasuired daiill iraiirnfallll to the 0.85-iirnclh I...............................y...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................y.................................................................................................................... Ibaselliiirne. I[Me to tlhe Ihii .Ih ireclhair. e irates of the lbasiiirns tlhe total) ca tuire volluinfle was Iliiirnniited to the total) .................................................................................................................................................. m...............................................................................................X..........................................................I!............................................................................................................................................................................ ; ;s k; .. is IBased yin the aims)) see descjJlbed above the esdirnnated airnirnuA ireclhair.e wiitlhiiin the iro"ect sires firoirnn .........................................................................................................................................................................................X..............................................................................................................................................m...............................................................li................................................................................ IBououet Greek and caiatuired iruirnoffr its suirnnirnnairiized iirn the follllowiiirnv table: '.II"all�lle 309 1.., ..................................................... IRIESUILTS OF PiRIF-PROPECrAIMID PROPECr IRIECHAiRGIE C01MIDI 110ims ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Recharge within the Project Area Pre-Proiect Pr�'ect 2gq�etCreelk fedt e _,! .i.: I:I.Lacre:.it 1.0ae:f( v _.!r SuI!aalreas.._1,00A.alrn_d'...:300A:._C9.f . ured.�f uno.11 0.a.cre:::_ /..Ylr((�.y((r ,11'.2t:.i. 1.:�:�..acJr ..::f1 . 1r �: ., Ir .:::[1.. !r (Based orn the iresullts of tlhiis airnall siis tlhe iro"ect wound iresullt iiin ais iiincirease iiin aininuall .irouindwateir X...........k.........................I...........11.............................................................................................................................................................................................................! A........................................................ ireclhair.e wiitlhii.rn the iro"ect sine° tlheirefoire tlhe iro"ect wound Ihave a (less tlh�airn sii.!2jfiicaint iiirnfl act to ..............................................................................................li................................................X..................................................x..........................li...........1�................................................................................................................................................m...................................................li.............................. irouindwateir ireclhair.e associiated wiitlh iro Deed sine iiinn iroveinfleints iiinclludiiin. tlhe iro Deed coirncirete .........................................................................................m........................................................................................11...........11............................................................11..................................................x...................................................................11...........11.................................................................... cIh. lmi2e.]_ o.L.gizr.Ih..iiklh�_st.2.r.m�.:0.2.w.s.. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Impact 3.9-6 The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or the project vicinity, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-16 3.10 NOISE Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts Mobile Noise Operation of the proposed project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses.:: . ffi ra.. �i r:9.p . f je( .... �?r?s .iy : ive a ....roach tho ar�ai sus of ro oct .. p.p....:.................................................::..............................Y..:........:........................12...............N...::.......:..:::::. p reNat~e d changes .2 [22d n ay ng.is e N e yeNs„ was„ based„ on„ a total of approximately 3,941 daily vehicle trips, which includes approximately 271 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 366 p.m. peak hour trips..(., .hJ's. number was caicuiated 'ire the traffic ariai s'is for an earlier version of the ro"ect rather than the current y................................................................................................................................................................................................. p............... i......................................................................................................................................................................... version which would enerate a rox'imatei � 092 da'ii tri s „ The "Existing Without Project" and .............................................................................................................................................g................................................................p.&............................................................y...............N......................................................y.....................P........)............ g J "Existing With Project" scenarios are compared in Table 3.10-6, Modeled Existing and Existing plus Project Traffic Noise Levels. As shown under the "Existing Without Project" scenario, noise levels would range from approximately 51.9 dBA to 70.0 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along Newhall Ranch Road. The "Existing With Project" scenario noise levels would range from approximately 52.4 dBA to 70.0 dBA, with the highest noise levels also occurring along Newhall Ranch Road. Table 3.10-6 also shows the differences between the "Existing Without Project" scenario and the "Existing With Project" scenario. The noise levels would result in a maximum increase of 0.7 dBA, as a result of the proposed project, along Bouquet Canyon Road (Plum Canyon to David Way). Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase noise levels along the roadway segments analyzed (i.e., noise increase would be less than 3.0 dBA). Furthermore, the increase of traffic due to the project would not cause the existing noise levels under 65 dBA CNEL to exceed the land use compatibility "normally acceptable" community noise exposure level of 65 dBA CNEL; refer to Table 3.10-4. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Stationary Noise On -site Recreation Center Outdoor Activity Noise Noise generated by groups of people (i.e., crowds) is dependent on several factors including vocal effort, impulsiveness, and the random orientation of the crowd members. According to "Prediction of Crowd" Noise (Hayne, Rumble, and Mee 2006), crowd noise would be approximately 62 dBA at 1 meter from the source.1 Noise has a decay rate due to distance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source (Harris 1994). Based on Figure 2.1 in the Project Description, the nearest sensitive receptor is an existing residence located approximately 500 feet2 from the proposed private recreation center located in Planning Area 1. As a result, crowd noise at this distance would be 18 dBA, which would not exceed the City's noise standards and would be lowerthan existing ambient noise levels nearthe site. As such, project operational noise associated with outdoor activities would not introduce an intrusive noise source. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 1 Crowd noise is estimated at 60 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) away for raised normal speaking. This noise level would have a +5 dBA adjustment for the impulsiveness of the noise source, and a -3 dBA adjustment for the random orientation of the crowd members. Therefore, crowd noise would be approximately 62 dBA at 1 meter from the source. 2 The main surface parking area represents the closest outdoor space area to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. residential uses). City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-16 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Pursuant to the environmental scoping process conducted in the first phase of this Draft EIR (see Appendix A), this section evaluates potential impacts related to the provision of public services for fire protection and emergency medical response, public safety and law enforcement, public schools, and parks. As indicated in the Initial Study prepared during the scoping process, the project's impact on other public services was determined to be less than significant and, therefore, is not further evaluated herein. 3.11.1 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 3.11.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire suppression and emergency medical response services for the project site and the surrounding area are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). Specifically, -16-1.5 fire stations with 1�:...engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, 1 hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. LACoFD Station 108 is located at 28799 Rock Canyon Drive, approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site, and is the jurisdictional station serving the site. Station 108 is staffed with a four -person engine company that includes one captain, one firefighter specialist, and two firefighters. The next nearest fire station is LACoFD Station 128, at 28450 Whites Canyon Road, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the project site. During 2017, Station 108 had an average emergency response time of 6 minutes and 1:4-38 seconds. .............. 3.11.1.2 REGULATORY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK FEDERAL National Fire Protection Association Standard 1720 — Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations This standard, which is used by the LACoFD, contains minimum requirements relating to the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public and addresses functions and outcomes of fire department emergency service delivery, response capabilities, and resources. In accordance with this standard, the LACoFD applies the 5-minute response time for the first arriving fire department and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel and 8-minute response time for advanced life support personnel in urban areas, and an 8-minute response time for first arriving fire department and EMS personnel and 12-minute response time for advance life support personnel in suburban areas. Santa Clarita is a mixture of urban and suburban areas. STATE California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 9: Fire Code The California Fire Code (CFC) contains regulations consistent with nationally recognized accepted practices for safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, life and property from the hazards of fire and explosion; hazardous conditions in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises; and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials and devices. The CFC also contains provisions to assist emergency response personnel. These fire safety -related building standards are referenced in other parts of Title 24 and this code is compatible with the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-1 3.12 TRANSPORTATION As noted above in the Methodology section, the primary metric utilized by the City of Santa Clarita to evaluate performance of the circulation system is LOS. The subsections below consider the following two scenarios to evaluate the project's effect on LOS: the Existing Plus Project scenario and the Interim Year Cumulative (2028) Conditions With Project scenario. The subsections below also provide a qualitative analysis of the project's consistency with plans addressing the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems. Vehicular Circulation System Analysis The proposed project is a residential development consisting of five planning areas with different types of residential products. The project consists of a total of 375 dwelling units, 64?00 of which are detached s' 'ir].gl family units and "m are multi -family for -sale units. Nwth one s jnf a 4y4wA 4vat N era -Based on trip generation factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the project is estimated to generate 3,092 daily trips, including 215 during the AM peak hour and 290 during the PM peak hour (see Table 1 in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis memo in Appendix J for trip generation calculations).' The project's trips were distributed onto the roadway network using the SCVCTM. The SCVCTM is a computerized travel demand model that utilizes a sophisticated trip distribution function to derive the distribution of vehicle trips, and which has previously been calibrated to the existing conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Based on the model, approximately 16 percent of Project trips are distributed to Copper Hill Drive west of the Project site, 55 percent to Bouquet Canyon Road south of the Project site, 26 percent to Plum Canyon Road east of the Project site, and 3 percent to Bouquet Canyon Road north of the Project site. Site Access The project's trip distribution is also based on the proposed site access controls, illustrated in Figure 3.12 3, and described below. The Project includes a gated entry along the newly relocated Bouquet Canyon Drive that provides access to Planning Areas 1 through 3 in the western and central portions of the Project. This intersection will serve as the main access point into/out of the Project site and was evaluated for satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant. Atraffic signal at this intersection is warranted based on the estimated peak hour volumes. The Project also includes a private street approximately a quarter mile north of the main Planning Area 1-3 access intersection described above. This driveway is primarily for trailhead parking but will also provide a connection into Planning Areas 1-3. The driveway will be under stop control and limited to right - turns in/out only. The iteration of the project evaluated in the project's Traffic Study consisted of total of 366 dwelling units, 197 of single-family units and 169 multi -family for -sale units, which was estimated to generate 3,941 daily trips, with 271 trips during the AM peak hour, and 366 trips during the PM peak hour. The currently proposed project results in a lower trip generation, with 22 less AM peak hour trips, 28 less PM peak hour trips, and 120 less daily trips as a result of the change in project mix (i.e., fewer single-family detached units and more multi -family units). Therefore, the LOS analysis presented in the project's Traffic Study and in this EIR is a conservative worst -case analysis. See the Supplemental Traffic Analysis memo in Appendix J for additional details. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-15 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Pursuant to the preliminary analysis in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A), this section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential impacts related to the connection and/or extension of water, wastewater conveyance and treatment, storm drain, and dry utilities (electric, gas, and telecommunications) infrastructure to the project site. This section also evaluates the proposed project's potential impacts to wastewater treatment capacity and water supply resources. As discussed in the Initial Study, potential impacts related to solid waste collection and disposal were determined to be less than significant; therefore, that topic will not be addressed in this section. 3.14.1 WATER SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE 3.14.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service to the project site is provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water). SCV Water was created January 1, 2018, through the merger of the Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) and its Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD), Newhall County Water District (NCWD), and the Valencia Water Company (VWC). The CLWA was formed as a wholesale water agency to acquire, treat, and deliver State Water Project water supply throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, and SCWD, NCWD and VWC were the retail water purveyors (SCV Water 2010). SCV Water also provides wholesale water to Los Angeles County Waterworks District (LACWWD) #36, Val Verde, which is located northwest of Santa Clarita, west of 1-5 and north of State Route 126. In total, the SCV Water service area has a population of 273,000 and covers approximately 195 square miles (124,800 acres) (SCV Water 2019). The project site is located within the service area of the SCWD, which covers 34,700 acres and has approximately 31,350 service connections (L&S 2018). SCV Water's sources of water consist of local groundwater, imported water primarily from the State Water Project, and recycled water. The sole source of local groundwater in the Santa Clarita Valley is the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin, East Subbasin, which is composed of two aquifer systems, the Alluvium and the Saugus Formation. The Alluvium generally underlies the Santa Clara River and its several tributaries, and the Saugus Formation underlies most of the Upper Santa Clara River area (KJC 2016). SCV Water obtains imported water from the State Water Project from Castaic Lake and delivers it through an extensive transmission pipeline system to its retail purveyors (KJC 2016). Recycled water has been available in Santa Clarita Valley since 2003 and is used for irrigation purpose.- lll oi-- rGrP rice below summarizes SCV Water's projected existing and planned water supply sources for the period 2020 to 2050. Table 3.14-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLIES ACRE-FEET)A 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Existing Supplies Groundwater' 31,545 31,545 31,545 31,545 31,545 31,545 31,545 Imported Water 78,467 78,167 75,587 75,387 75,387 75,387 75,387 Recycled Water 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-1 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Banking/Exchange Programs 22,950 12,950 12,950 12,950 12,950 12,950 7.950 Total Existing 133,412 123,112 120,532 120,332 120,332 120,332 115,332 Planned New Supplies Groundwater 5,230 7,230 8,230 10,230 10,230 10,230 10,230 Recycled 565 5,156 7,627 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 Banking/Exchange Programs 7,000 7,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 22,000 Total Planned 12,795 19,386 32,857 36,834 36,834 36,834 41,834 Source: KJC 2016, pg. 3-2. a The values shown under "Existing Supplies" and "Planned Supplies" are projected to be available in average/normal years. The values shown under "Existing Banking and Exchange Programs" and "Planned Banking Programs" are the maximum capacity of program withdrawals, and would typically be used only during dry years. b Existing groundwater supplies represent the quantity of groundwater anticipated to be pumped with existing wells. In 2017, the total water demand for the SCV Water service area was approximately 77,000 acre-feet (AF), consisting of approximately 63,600 AF for municipal use and 13,400 AF for agricultural and other (miscellaneous) uses (L&S 2018). The total water demand in 2017 was met by a combination of approximately 29,900 AF from local groundwater, approximately 46,600 AF of imported water, and approximately 500 AF of recycled water. I€, ..I.III.._.1..4.-2 below summarizes the projected water demand for the SCV Water service area for five-year increments beginning 2020 through 2050. Table 3.14-2 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR ENTIRE SCV WATER SERVICE AREA ACRE-FEET)a 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 N C W D 10,100 10,700 11,200 11,800 12,600 13,400 14,200 SCWD 28,400 29,100 29,900 30,800 32,400 33,900 36,000 VWC 28,100 32,100 36,600 40,000 39,600 39,300 39,000 LACWWD #36' 2,300 2,700 3,100 3,500 3,900 4,300 4,700 Total Demand 68,900 74,600 80,800 86,100 88,500 90,900 93,900 Source: KJC 2016, pg. 2-6. a Values rounded to the nearest hundred. Demands include savings from plumbing code and standards and active conservation as assumed in the 2015 Santa Clarita Valley Water Use Efficiency Strategic Plan. b LACWWD 36 future demand was based on a growth projection factor and not on land use. LACWWD #36 is included for purposes of providing regional completeness. The project site is currently undeveloped with no existing improvements on the site. Therefore, there is no water infrastructure on the project site (e.g., groundwater wells or distribution lines) and the project site does not generate water demand under current conditions. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-2 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS includes identifying existing off -site water infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site and determining whether connections to such existing water infrastructure would result in project impacts. 3.14.1.5 ANALYSIS Impact 3.14.1a The proposed project would require water service provided by SCV Water's Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD). The development of 375 new residential units and private and common landscape areas on the project site would generate a water demand of approximately 338.85 acre-feet per year. This would require construction of new on- and off -site water infrastructure to connect to the existing local water distribution lines maintained and operated by SCWD. Impacts would be less than significant. Discussion SCV Water's SCWD would provide water service to the project site for the proposed 375 new residential units. Points of connection to the SCWD existing water distribution lines are located along the south side of Bouquet Canyon Road in the two areas where the new layout of Bouquet Canyon Road would tie into the existing roadway. Construction impacts associated with the installation of these connections to the existing water distribution lines would primarily involve trenching to place the connections below the ground surface. The design and installation of these new service connections would require coordination with SCWD to ensure compliance with applicable construction standards and avoid disruption of water service to existing customers, and to maintain safe traffic flow over affected street segments. In addition, during construction of the proposed project, water would be required primarily for dust control, cleaning of equipment, and other related construction activities; however, the water demand would be temporary and intermittent. Water for construction -related purposes could be provided by water trucks and/or through connections to nearby water distribution lines. The amount of water required during this construction phase would be well below the total water demand of the fully developed project and would not require expansions of existing or construction of new water transmission infrastructure. Therefore, construction impacts to water supplies and facilities would be less than significant. :II".,I•II•••,•o,A,..;•••.below summarizes the proposed project's estimated water demand by housing unit type and total irrigation demand. The proposed project would generate an estimated total water demand of 338.85 AF per year during an average rainfall year; in single drought years, the water demand is estimated to be 10 percent higher, or 372.7 AF per year (Marks 2019). According to SCV Water, the proposed project's water demand would not require additional water transmission infrastructure; therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.14-3 ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER DEMAND (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) IN AVERAGE RAINFALL YEAR No. of Units Demand Factor Demand Planning Area 1 - Single -Family Lots with Driveways 52 0.7936 41.3 Planning Area 1A - Single -Family Lots with Driveways 12 0.7936 9.5 Planning Area 2 - Single -Family Detached/8-Pack Cluster 136 0.7936 107.9 Planning Area 3 - Backyard Towns 90 0.3436 30.9 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-8 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS No. of Units Demand Factor Demand Planning Area 4 - Rowtown with Carriage Units 85 0.3436 29.2 Landscape Irrigation - - 120.0 Total Demand 375 - 338.85 Source: Marks 2019 Mitigation Measures The project would have a less than significant impact and would not require mitigation. Impact 3.14.1b SCV Water would have sufficient water supplies to meet the project's water demand of 338.85 acre-feet per year to supply water service to the 375 new homes and the irrigated landscape areas proposed by the project, during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. Discussion As discussed above, the proposed project would generate an estimated total water demand of 338.85 AF per year during an average rainfall year or 372.7 AF per year in single dry years. The proposed project is consistent with the "Urban Residential 2 (1-1112)", "Urban Residential 5 (1-1115)", and "Neighborhood Commercial (CN)" General Plan land use designations for the project site, which allows for single-family homes, medium -to high -density apartment, and condominium complexes. SCV Water has stated that the proposed project's water demand is included in the water demand projections contained in the 2015 UWMP (see 11". I-b.II .._ .o_1. -: .., .), since the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designations (Marks 2019). Therefore, SCV Water's existing and planned water supplies (see.IrIbII...............................................................o.-', I€ ) would be sufficient to serve the project site and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The project would have a less than significant impact and would not require mitigation. 3.14.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE 3.14.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site has no wastewater infrastructure and does not currently generate any wastewater. It is not within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC), which provides wastewater collection and treatment services throughout the Santa Clarita Valley and a larger total service area of approximately 824 square miles, consisting of 24 independent sanitation districts serving approximately 5.5 million people within 78 cities and unincorporated territory in Los Angeles County (SDLAC 2019a). The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater conveyance system for the Santa Clarita Valley, which consists of a 34-mile long, interconnected network of trunk sewers and two pumping plants (SDLAC 2019b). The system conveys wastewater and wastewater solids from the local sewer lines, which are either owned by the City of Santa Clarita or Los Angeles County, to the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants (WRPs) (SDLAC 2019b). The Saugus WRP is located at 26200 Springbrook Avenue in the City of Santa Clarita and provides City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-9 3.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3.14.2.5 ANALYSIS Impact 3.14.2a Wastewater flows from the project site would be discharged to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Bouquet Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer, then conveyed to the Saugus and Valencia WRPs for treatment. The trunk sewer and the Saugus and Valencia WRPs would have sufficient capacityto convey and treat the flows generated by the fully developed project. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater collection or treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant. nicrimcinn :...provides the estimated wastewater flows that would be generated bythe proposed project at buildout. As shown, based on the loading factors provided by SDLAC, the 375 new homes and the recreation center on the project site would generate a total of 74,490 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. The wastewater flow from the project site would be discharged to a new sewer main to be constructed by the project within the proposed new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, then conveyed to the 24-inch Bouquet Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer, located in Bouquet Canyon Road at Festividad Drive, south of Seco Canyon Road, approximately two miles southwest of the project site. Construction of the sewer main within the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would not result in additional or stand-alone impacts that have not been accounted for in the project's various construction impacts associated with the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. A private system of underground sewers would collect wastewater generated at the homes and recreation centers for conveyance into the new sewer main. The project site is not within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SDLAC and will require annexation before sewer service can be provided. The proposed project would also be required to pay a capital facilities fee to connect to the SDLAC sewer system. Upon annexation and connection, the Bouquet Canyon relief trunk sewer, which has a capacity of 12.3 mgd and peak flow of 3.5 mgd, would have sufficient capacity to accept the estimated 74,490 gpd (0.074 mgd) of wastewater from the project site. This would represent a minor increment of the available capacity in that sewer. The project's estimated 0.074 mgd of wastewater would represent a negligible share of the total capacity of the SCVJSS and would thus result in a minor impact on system capacity. The proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater collection or treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.14-4 ESTIMATED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION (GALLONS PER DAY) No. of Units Factor Demand Single -Family Detached 64 260 16,640 Single -Family Detached/8 Pack Cluster 136 195 26,520 Attached Backyard Towns 90 195 17,550 Attached Rowtowns 85 156 13,260 Recreation Centers 2b 260 520 Total Wastewater Flow 74,490 Source: Michael Baker International 2019 Based on the factors provided by SDLAC in Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use. Website: https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebanl(Z blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531, accessed May 31, 2019. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-12 3.15 WILDFIRE on the extent of other evacuation efforts in other parts of the community that may generate traffic on the same routes. Estimates of project -related evacuation trips as a percentage of normal weekday peak hour traffic on affected roadways are presented in, below, as a way of examining the relative magnitude of the project's impact during such normally congested time periods, when the impact would likely be highest. During non -peak hours, especially late -night and early morning periods when there is much less traffic, the impact of project residents leaving during an emergency evacuation would likely be less than during peak hour conditions. Conditions during such lower traffic periods could be exacerbated if several neighboring communities were also threatened by the same wildfire conditions and forced to evacuate along the same escape routes as project residents. Table 3.15-2 PROJECT EMERGENCY EVACUATION TRAFFIC AS A PERCENTAGE OF TYPICAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Roadway Highest Two -Way Existing Volume- Project -Added Project Increase in Segment/Number of Peak Hour Volume to -Capacity Ratio2 Vehicles with WC Ratio (QI Lanes -Current Full Evacuation' III N a ectu affirm(a„ Conditions' Copper Hill Road, 883 (PM) V/C = 0.44 85 from PA 4 (or V/C = up to 0.53 between Old Bouquet could also split % (+.09) Canyon Rd and Benz in this direction, Road/2 lanes % to east) Copper Hill Road, west 1,198 (AM) V/C = 0.30 Up to 97 from PA V/C = 0.35 (+.05) of Benz/4 lanes 1A and PA 4 Bouquet Canyon Road, 1,387 (PM) V/C = 0.69 Up to 85 from PA V/C could increase to north of new segment 4, possibly up to 1.46 07 with of Bouquet Canyon 281 more from �(; 375 homes Road/2 lanes PAs 1, 1A, 2 and taking this route 3 Bouquet Canyon Road, 1,' 1 (PM) V/C = 0 94 35„ Up to 281 from V/C = 0.92 49„ south of new Bouquet PAs 1, 1A, 2 and (+.2,1, 1JA Canyon Road/24 lanes 3 Benz Road between 304 PM ( ) - V C - 0..a :+ / � 3o 9 from PA 1 V/C = 0.16 (+.01) old Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill/2 lanes Plum Canyon Road, 1,680 (PM) V/C = 0.42 (PM) Up to 281 from V/C could increase to east of old Bouquet PAs 1, 1A, 2, and 0.56 (+.14) Canyon Road/4 lanes 3, but many would likely continue on old Bouquet Canyon Road rather than turning onto Plum Canyon Road. 'AM = morning peak hour and PM = afternoon peak hour Assumes 1,000 vehicles per lane capacity 2,i�� s "PA' refers to proposed project Planning Areas and number of homes from specific areas that might evacuate in one vehicle City of Santa Clarita Apri12020 3.15-16 Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15 WILDFIRE ° Project trips added to % peak hour two-way volumes, then VIC calculated based on that total divided by total lane capacity in that direction Sources: Stantec, October 2019; Michael Baker International, December 2019 As shown in Table 3.15-2, the project would add a range of vehicles to local roadways during an evacuation event, with corresponding increases in peak hour V/C ranging from 5 1— : 7 38 percent. With the project's emergency evacuation traffic, the affected roadways would operate at well below saturation levels, at less than 60 percent of volume -capacity, except in two locations. If the hypothetical "worst -case" condition involving 375 homes evacuating and all drivers electing to escape to the north, via existing two- lane Bouquet Canyon Road to the north of the project, the peak hour V/C would increase to 1.G&;w..7, indicating more than the capacity of the northbound lane. This represents severely congested conditions with difficult and highly constrained traffic flow and would represent a serious constraint to evacuating motorists. If the hypothetical worst -case condition involving evacuation of 281 homes and all escaping motorists elect to escape to the south, via the existing 2, lane Bouquet Canyon Road, the peak hour V/C would increase to 0 92413, representing 92 41) percent of the southbound Zane capacity, �L:.7..L.� I� L.L:7cficatIs a„ ... � r. ,; " ID"I ntJ �'I�I!1II��I' ;7� Al l V NY 1!l�4�VNY�VV L iAkh �i irl k.dgi As noted earlier, the City's HMP provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for wildfire emergencies. The command structure would assess local conditions in a dynamic, i.e., ongoing manner, to identify locations and severity of threats to homes and businesses and any other land uses that put people in the path of a wildfire. Based on those assessments, decisions would be made on where to focus fire response efforts, initiate calls for back-up assistance and assignment of additional resources, and when/where to implement emergency evacuations if no other options are deemed viable. This could include partial or total evacuation of the project site, sheltering in place for some parts of the community, possibly moving people to the internal recreation centers, or combinations of all of these approaches. The two hypothetical worst -case conditions noted above where project residents evacuating the site could encounter and complicate congested peak hour roadway conditions are unlikely to occur, since it is unlikely that all of the escaping motorists would select the same routes after exiting the project site. It is more likely that motorists would select the route and direction that they believe would take them most quickly away from whatever direction a wildfire might be approaching. Actions by emergency responders to direct evacuation efforts would also be based, in part, on indications of where congestion is occurring so that project evacuees could be directed in a different direction. The City's existing emergency response system, including the manner in which emergency evacuations are initiated and managed, would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of future wildfires in the project area that result in a need to evacuate some or all of the proposed 375 home residential community. Development of the proposed project would not adversely affect the emergency response protocols established by the City's HMP or current best practices. Project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would not be required. Impact 3.15-b The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not create conditions that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-17 5.0 ALTERNATIVES The overall level of wildland fire hazard would be reduced to a similar level, compared to existing conditions, for the project or Alternative 3. Cumulative Impacts Alternative 1 would result in no contribution to any cumulative impacts. As discussed in Chapter 4, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated during project construction, as there are no nearby projects that could be under construction at the same time that could add to the localized impacts generated by the project's construction activities. These circumstances would apply to Alternatives 2 and 3, as well; therefore, each of the three development alternatives would result in the same, less than significant cumulative impact during construction. As discussed in Chapter 4, the project would not add to cumulative impacts involving aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, or tribal cultural resources, since these types of impacts are site -specific. With the same number of new homes and a comparable mixture of housing types for the proposed project and Alternatives 2 and 3, and assuming site development in the same time frame, all long-term impacts resulting from the number and types of homes and the corresponding levels of impact for air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, utilities, energy sources, public services, and traffic would be similar and the scope and intensity of cumulative impacts would be the same for all three development scenarios. The interactions or absence thereof between the proposed project, Alternatives 2 and 3, and other pending projects considered in the analysis of cumulative impacts would be the same. The level of cumulative impact, therefore, would be the same for any of the development alternatives assessed in this chapter. Table 5.0-1, below, summarizes the determinations concerning the comparison of impacts between the proposed project and the three alternatives. Table 5.0-1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Impact Topics Proposed Project Alternative 1-No Project/No- Development Alternative 2- Reduced Grading Alternative 3- Reduced Alteration of Creek, Oak Trees, Sensitive Habitat Aesthetics LS 0 < < Air Quality LSM 0 < _ Biological Resources LSM 0 _ < Cultural Resources LSM 0 _ < Energy Consumption LS 0 Geology/Soils LSM 0 < < Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS 0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LSM 0 Hydrology/Water Quality LSM 0 _ < Noise LSM 0 City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0-13 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Impact Topics Proposed Project Alternative 1-No Project/No- Development Alternative 2- Reduced Grading Alternative 3- Reduced Alteration of Creek, Oak Trees, Sensitive Habitat Population and Housing LS 0 Public Services LS 0 Transportation/Traffic LSM 0 Tribal Cultural Resources LSM 0 _ Utilities LS 0 Wildfire LSM 0 Cumulative Impacts LSM 0 Acronyms: LS = Less Than Significant. LSM = Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Symbols: = is similar to project impact, > is greater than project impact, < is less than project impact, 0 is no impact Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the preceding analysis, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have the least impact, as it would not alter the existing conditions and would not result in any of the short-term or long-term impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project or the other development alternatives. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that in those instances in which the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior, the EIR must also identify which of the other alternatives would have the least environmental impact. Among the development alternatives, Alternative 3 would be considered environmentally superior, as it would have a lesser level of impact than the project for five types of impacts, whereas Alternative 2 would have a lesser level of impact for three types of impacts. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed project with respect to aesthetics and geology/soils. Alternative 2 would have the least impact involving grading -related air pollutant emissions. Alternative 3 would have the least impact involving removal of biological and cultural resources and alteration of the existing floodplain along Bouquet Creek. City of Santa Clarita Bouquet Canyon Project Apri12020 Draft Environmental Impact Report 5.0-14 7.0 REFERENCES State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Storm Water Program. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml, accessed January 2, 2020. Tlaoixnas IlNairdeir & Co. 2020N diro.eo.ocvesiiGwaclaame..................V.................t..........a..................11. ...na.rt.r� ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IFtesiideindAl f.�evello irxnent {�ircal"Iect p/ Fein tabye Tract 82:�..26 IE:3cau�puet Can�(can Santa Cllairiita .......................................................................................1G:.............................................0...................5........................................................................................................6.k......................:::A.................................... X..............k..............................................................k. Cal ll'foirlmlla. ................................................ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Amended 2002. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 3.10 NOISE Berger, Elliott H., Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2010. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. 2006. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/l18131/transit- noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_O.pdf. Harris, Cyril M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. . 1994. Noise Control in Buildings. Hayne, M.J., R.H. Rumble, and D.J. Mee. 2006. "Prediction of Crowd Noise." ACOUSTICS, November 2006. https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AASNZ2006/papers/p46.pdf. Kariel, H. G. 1991. "Noise in Rural Recreational Environments." Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10. OPR (Governor's Office of Planning and Research). 2003. General Plan Guidelines. Integral Communities. 2019. Bouquet Canyon Santa Clarita California Conceptual Site Plan. Santa Clarita, City of. 2011. General Plan Noise Element. https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/ovov20ll_O5noise.pdf. SIKAND. 2019. Bouquet Canyon Grading Plan. Stantec. 2019. Bouquet Canyon Residential EIR Traffic Impact Analysis — Draft. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES FBI (Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation). 2019. UCR Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics — UCR Offense Definitions. Accessed June 4, 2019. https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/offenses.cfm. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. 2013. LASD Patrol Divisions [PDF document]. http://shq.Iasdnews.net/content/uoa/EPC/LASD_Jurisdiction.pdf. City of Santa Clarita April 2020 7.0-10 Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Supplemental Analysis: Groundwater Recharge ThomYM W ', July 28, 2020 City of Santa Clarita Planning Department 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Re: Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Recharge for Multifamily Residential Development Project (Tentative Track 82126), Bouquet Canyon, Santa Clarita, California To Whom It May Concern, This letter presents the results of a hydrogeological investigation of groundwater recharge in Bouquet Canyon in Santa Clarita, California. Thomas Harder & Company (TH&Co) has been retained by SIKAND to conduct this analysis. SIKAND is providing engineering services to Integral Communities for the multifamily residential development project known as Tentative Track 82126 (the Project; see Figure 1). Bouquet Creek currently flows through the Project area via an undeveloped (i.e. native) channel and the Project includes construction of two parallel channels to convey Bouquet Creek flows through the Project area. The Project also includes the construction of six stormwater retention basins. The purpose of this work is to conduct an analysis that addresses the following comments from the Satna Clarita Valley Water Agency: Please provide further evaluation of the project's overall effect on groundwater recharge at the project site. Would the project result in a reduction, an increase or maintain approximately the same levels of recharge compared to existing conditions? A comparison of the length of Bouquet Creek on site with the total length from the upstream reservoir to the channelized Bouquet Creek on the north side of Bouquet Canyon Road is not sufficient. That does not determine whether groundwater recharge within the project site would increase or decrease or not be materially affected. The latter portion of this comment, which references the comparison of lengths, is directed at an analysis conducted by SIKAND. To be responsive, the analysis presented herein quantitatively evaluates pre -project and post -project recharge conditions within the Project area (i.e. Bouquet Creek and the six planned retention basins) using publicly -available precipitation and streamflow data. "homes Harder % Co. 1 w SIKAND Hydrogeological Investigation of Groundwater Recharge in Bouquet Canyon (Tentative Track 82126) 28-Jul-20 Data Sources The following sources of data and documents reviewed for this work included: • Tentative Track Map No 82126 and site layout information provided by SIKAND • Bouquet Creek profile and stages provided by SIKAND • Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, January 2020, prepared by SIKAND • Daily precipitation data from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Daily streamflow data from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Planned Project Construction The Project includes the construction of two parallel channels to convey Bouquet Creek flows through the Project area (see Figure 2). The primary channel is the current native channel but would be modified such that it would transmit flows only up to 200 cubic feet per second (cfs; i.e. "low flows"). Flows greater than 200 cfs (i.e. "high flows") would be diverted into a second, concrete -lined channel running parallel to the primary channel. Therefore, recharge associated with low flows would not change due to the project but recharge associated with high flows would be decreased to that associated with 200 cfs within the primary channel. For example, if 350 cfs flows into the Project area, the decrease in recharge in the Project area would be that associated with 350 cfs in the primary channel minus the recharge associated with 200 cfs in the primary channel. The Project also includes the construction of six stormwater retention basins related to six subareas (100A, 200A, 300A, 400A, 500A, and 600A; see Figure 2). The feature for 600A is herein counted as a basin even though the design is outside the scope of the analysis. Three of these basins, for subareas 100A, 300A, and 400A, are located on comparatively permeable canyon floor alluvium and are expected to capture the majority of runoff that will become recharge. Runoff within Subarea 100A will be captured in a 0.5-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 1.75 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 300A will be captured in a 0.09-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.38 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 400A will be captured in a 0.03-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.07 acre-ft. Thomas Harder & Co. 2 ��f SIKAND Hydrogeological Investigation of Groundwater Recharge in Bouquet Canyon (Tentative Track 82126) 28-Jul-20 Data The analysis relies on both Streamflow data and precipitation data. The Streamflow data is used to quantify recharge through the streambed sediments of Bouquet Creek whereas the precipitation data are used to estimate runoff to, and subsequent recharge in, the retention basins. Bouquet Creek Streamflow Data Bouquet Creek average daily Streamflow data is available from October 1969 to September 2001 at station F377 (Bouquet Creek Near Saugus) and from October 2001 to May 2020 at station F377B (Bouquet Creek Above Bouquet Canyon Road). The locations of these gages are shown on Figure 1 whereas the Streamflow data is shown on Figure 3. Gaps in the data of more than two days are noted on this figure. Daily Streamflow ranged from zero to 1,050 cfs with an average of 1.3 cfs (933 acre-ft/yr). Based on the available data daily Streamflow exceeded 200 cfs 11 times. It is noted that streamflows may be influenced by releases from Bouquet Reservoirs approximately 11 miles upstream of the Project and 1 to 3 miles upstream of the gages though the scale of the potential influence at the project site is unknown. It is also noted that the gages are downstream of Haskell Canyon and Plum Canyon which are tributaries to Bouquet Canyon downstream of the Project. Therefore, the streamflows measured at the gages more closely reflect Streamflow through the Project area only during those times when there is no Streamflow in these tributaries and then only after accounting for Streamflow losses between the Project area and the gages. Precipitation Data Mint Canyon (station AL402) daily precipitation data was available from March 1998 to August 2019. Gaps in the data of more than two days include from July 31, 2000 to February 25, 2001, August 4, 2003 to August 26, 2003, October 6, 2009 to November 3, 2009, and March 4, 2010, to March 22, 2010. Average annual precipitation based on the available data was 9.2 inches per year. It is noted that the average annual precipitation for the Project area is 14 inches per year based on a long-term, regional, state-wide map 2. The difference may be due to the relatively short period of available data (22 years) and gaps in data. I Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, 2017. 2017 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report. Prepared by Luhdorff & Scalmanini, September 2018. 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 1998. California Mean Annual Precipitation Zones, 1900- 1960 Thomas Harder & Co. ��f SIKAND Hydrogeological Investigation of Groundwater Recharge in Bouquet Canyon (Tentative Track 82126) 28-Jul-20 Methodology The methodology used to quantify pre- and post -Project recharge involves quantifying recharge in Bouquet Creek and recharge in the retention basins. The former relies on the streamflow data whereas the latter relies on the precipitation data (to quantify runoff into the retention basins) along with an estimate of infiltration rate at the two subarea basins most likely to influence the calculations (i.e. 100A and 300A as noted earlier). Recharge associated with high intensity rainfall events that could result in flow from the retention basins into Bouquet Creek are not accounted for in our methodology, primarily due to the uncertainty associated with precisely where such an exchange would occur and expected low frequency of such events. Methodology to Estimate Bouquet Creek Recharge Infiltration within Bouquet Creek was estimated based on historical streamflow records, estimated stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. Daily infiltration is the product of stream width, stream length, and infiltration rate. The stream width was based on the stream profile from SIKAND at three stages, 0, 100, and 200 cfs (see Figure 4). The flows between each stage were assumed to be proportional to the area. Using these proportions, the daily stream profile (including width) was calculated based the daily streamflow data. The width of the stream when flows were greater than 200 cfs were assumed to be equal to the maximum width of the stream profile. The length of the Bouquet Creek within the Project area is approximately 2,000 ft. The infiltration rate was based on three infiltration tests conducted near Bouquet Creek as reported in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. As shown in Figure 2, two of the tests were conducted at 100A whereas the third was conducted at 300A. The average of the adjusted infiltration rates (as presented in the original report) was 8.0 ft/day. Recharge for flows less than 200 cfs were assumed to be the same for pre -Project and Project conditions. Infiltration for flows greater than 200 cfs was limited to that which is calculated for the primary, low flow channel. As noted above, based on the available data daily streamflow exceeded 200 cfs 11 times. Methodology to Estimate Captured Runoff Captured runoff was estimated based on historical precipitation data, runoff volumes from SIKAND, the size of the stormwater retention basin, and the estimated infiltration rate within subareas 100A 300A, and 400A retention basins. "homers Herder & Co. 4 ��f SIKAND Hydrogeological Investigation of Groundwater Recharge in Bouquet Canyon (Tentative Track 82126) 28-Jul-20 Precipitation runoff was calculated by SIKAND for Subareas 100A, 300A, and 400A as presented in the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. Runoff within Subarea 100A will be captured in a 0.5-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 1.75 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 300A will be captured in a 0.09-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.38 acre-ft. Runoff within Subarea 400A will be captured in a 0.03-acre basin with a maximum capacity of 0.07 acre-ft. The basins will be unlined and located on the canyon floor alluvium. Based on the available infiltration data noted above, the basins are assumed to have an infiltration rate of 8.0 ft/day, which translates to a combined recharge capacity for both basins of 5.0 acre-ft/day when full. Based on a peak flow hydrologic analysis by SIKAND, a 0.85-inch precipitation event within Subbareas 100A, 300A, and 300A would generate 0.86, 0.38, and 0.07 acre-ft of water under Project conditions, respectively. Estimated runoff was based on the proportion of measured daily rainfall to the 0.85-inch baseline. Due to the high recharge rates of the basins, the total capture volume was limited to the total recharge capacity. Results of Pre -Project and Project Recharge Conditions Analysis Based on the analyses described above, the estimated annual recharge within the project area from Bouquet Creek and captured runoff is summarized in the following table: Bouquet Creek Recharge 114 acre-ft/yr 109 acre-ft/yr Subbareas 100A and 300A Captured Runoff 0 acre-ft/yr 14 acre-ft/yr Total 1114 acre-ft/yr 1123 acre-ft/yr Thomas Harder & Co. 5 ��f SIKAND Hydrogeological Investigation of Groundwater Recharge in Bouquet Canyon (Tentative Track 82126) 28-Jul-20 I appreciate the opportunity to provide hydrogeological consulting services for this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 930-6436. Sincerely, Benjamin Lewis, P.G., C.HG. Senior Hydrogeologist Thomas r r 6 ��f N Y y C O C � 5 2c o ro o m g v U g cZ o C w cZ L L LI M O fi v 2) LL N Z Y y Q o 0 on o C 4y o g a xlz I � i 3 I u O O N �0., 01 �P30 luuumlum�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 00, mlupiuuumlllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllll .... llllllll 0, ��%�, mllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, Fad, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "" mm�uouuuuuVlllllllllllllllln ��� . .,: uuuuuuuumouuuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuuuum P..Z` 2" 66> _.. 6iP A �<��, i mummuuuuuouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuouuum . � IIIII�����IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�����IIIIII����� . �Illllllllllllllll�llllllllllmllllllllllllllmmmlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll �� mumnuuuuuuumummuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul uuuuuuuuuuuuumumummliiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiii ��, mmmllllmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummuuuuuuuuuuuuui uumummmmlmuuuuuuuuuuuuumiiiiiiu muuuuuuuuuuuuuummuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum �, w M�III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII......I w%P.i.. �muu�uuuuuuuuuuul "' uuuu�llllllllllllllllllllll�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll � 0 0 0 0 C? C? C? 0 0 0 0 i 0 ci { (sp) mojjw eDj.jS hlie(] DOMDAV H 2 Z N 00 C rl W L m � � M 4O O LL O L C O N O Y 4� N E c0 00 N 4• a) 4. "I Q 0 Lcu O (ccSS O r14G m O >- Ol rl (m G 4� N rl 3 40 N on 3 Q O 3 O — uj N O Ol L 4y L O m U r -I O ricu L E O � I� u O rn o z c cu O O -0 � m C:o n O G N >, rl N c� o O >_ O cri U rn E m r' cu > -0 +' rl O E >_ Z 44 0OC � O CL G O Y O 4— u O 0 � O � cB O l0 -0 M OM 0) N 0) L L a••' N C _arlcu O Q u (m o 0 2 cn 0 N O n Go N V 4) w cn 41 m tp (14 (14 0 00 0 0 -ri M 41 Lm 4mi 41 C (A w > cn c 0 m 6 u & 44 z cn = cr 0 U) m ca C? uI7 C? uI7 C? uI7 CLl7 dN I q 0 q.IdDary C? 0 H I H 11 Ed Ln Cry ro ro .r.. 0 U m E ro A Ln dN I If I IN 0 (I cu cu 7p CL < Y CU CU E 0 4— u 4 3 11 (13 on 4— uQS 0 N O co N Updated Project Plans O.G. gl 9 g g g ... LU ou W4 z It" 0 1 0 N 00 0 SMI o, vr; 1r % %%IJ/� IN / `aC v /'/�doll /w 17, mg j g� j / r � r /i LLJ oi1' ��R/ Al a /i/OV r/rl�/ii ally f k VENUE oa �., .,..T SIA A On y' %Ol 1 o VINP / / / a r J`NbD �1111.1311Df108 ../ /� lr ° r / / u �, ' 1 r�/ <„ w rli �! r l ir/ r r At �� ',r; %///j/ 1 „v l �/ 1f �/ r//� .I u /; 9 J,u. 'y ,� r% �ri/'r, 4 /%/%rn -MING, IOOr2 JnNv,�+r��aoa+ /ar 11 i / Nd /r' , ;r, ✓ ,,,n G/, v'i/% If r/////j,.( rl i : i '; /I r /1 '� l/ %/ II �/ h %%/ /✓'% rl"M WON, ' '✓o ///�G////r / / / r % %6 '��' rri/ I VI, / 1 /r Air//f / %r'/ �j/o% i;'/ r /, ` 4r �l/ rii lip / Up ", �% / G�/ii / �/ rp/ o / r it ,%l, , /r Gv a //%%i r r / 1 c ram... <vN e.-_. gym.- .-�� .-�a ���... ._ ������ a �d� ��� a d If /(� l�/ v��rjii,,,,� 0 Gv 41 ws j z w z p Jz aw aw �s // A: � o 0 0 o Jo>J Qo u v/ / t/ u N u J u u % Q a m wk m > > o U, a lln�N ❑ a ❑� ap wo U a p 3�a $q o _ 9 yell/i% a m Y a io Y r m F Y m J r m rii F iL U dP1i 9 O m pm. m a m I/ r✓ / w� ,,,wµ ( 1 // Q Q m w ffj/ / Y'10,11/ / ri 11 ;, �`„ "�' m;,� „z; ,Ir;'vr,�„ '3Gs ,,l t",/n fro P /ro" �% -�Gll/ // ,,ivU� CFtl f) Z� I HOB AVENUE M, NQN V NO x a 0 Z U UJ 00 CL X Wa 0 ' Z Q Z z_U w O N 20 O C G C13 W Z O ,Q V_ N C C C� C C o ao ao o ao ao 4, fp d (B .y 41 C N L O C (0 N C (B a-•� 4- C N L O C (0 c N-0 (0 41 >- C CU 4-; C N c .N 4� O C .N y N C (n E O (o dA > dA .O 3 O > dA m (n E O (o dA > OA .O 3 > O" M cB (n B- E 3 (B i U >. OA � U OA 4- M i U C >. dA U dA `+- (0 E i _= Gi O >• 41 (0 L CL - — a' � C 'L O N U CL C L O > 4' M- L CL — a1 C c 'L O C U N C CL L O >• +_ L CC G N > c0 CL O Q +� M N 3 3 (B 3 m O 3 4� M N 3 3 (B 3 M O 1A 3 4� m O N N U U a co LA LL 4• U U a CO (n LL a• U U U L Q L cu CL L cu CL O O O a > > > o o -0 -0 V 0 U U U p• C N N N H O O O OC Q a a a Up C -0 a- O O L O O O O O OA -0 qA OA -0 C N >O E N U � ,0 C C � (0 C C C m (0 C N (0 L CL L 4- 4- m i m 3 C " " le CU O O N tw Ule dA 4O U U t N a-' cB CL U cB U " ,N i 61 3 tw U i tw C tw U (o dA i 4� L O N O C L N C L C L Q C > C >• L O V 3 (B 3 O 3 3 O N m 'L O LL -0 U LL -0 CL dA U LL CL CL a- c 4— O .aE O O C O L i C L N 4J 4�L U C N +J 4�O U 4J U .O 3 N Nm CL N i N N CL N i tw N Q y O O m O E CU O O (o O E O U OC y Q v O U y Q v CLC O U C (A 0 N -0 U OA 4— C 3 C� " C � N �_ U OA 4— 3 G t N L O .m Q OA C > U N > U N Q O CL cLo CO c 3 O a (Lo CO 3 O cB 0O (Lo d N OA U m-0 d N OA U m-0 d CL U OA N N O r-I -0 N ivo 0 . '� C (0 — f0 (B c— -0 O O .0 N N 'In-0O N cu cu y N C O= O C C cu U- N N N c�c G �"� C N OD U N (SS (SS U r-I Q O O N N C 4�N cu C N C N L CO N U Q 4�4— U U 3�> N �>' m L 4�> (SS N� cu U 0 .� 4� cuC >. L O N > C O N .y O ^�� 3 LL O Q U L 4J 4J 3� L I n CL O 4� 3 L N_ L 4�L O N C - 3 N C U M O U cr U O U0 L on -0 O dA > U OL � 3 C 0� N= CL U C O cuO cuO-0 O >' cuO cu > >• C!] "- -0 CL U N >• L O U E ^ O O N C a m_ �J U N i C C N M-C y i y M- 3 M N >' -0 U M U U — (0 4� 3= N qp OD N C U O L 3 U o -C N >- -0 N M L > N C M O N C u cu -CO p C y 3 N i C N L N N N .�.J N U N� 3 O 0 C m N M U OU w U 0 N C� 3� N N O N U Ocu C O N N N — (o O O U N 3 C N O N E O L 4O N 5>�� N L D +' U O E C (Cu. C 3 N L cu u -0� cu Z 3 (0 N cL -C C O OC C In 'O y O � � •O � N O � Ow O � � N C G E � 4— O .y � y L N N C am- (0 — U E � � O i1A •C• U- cu 3 Nmcr Q C (0 dA 0 N CLM 3 N ULA N ro +J Q N E O m U u 4 J N N Q CO O E N H M dA N C E m 41 C co co y U" 0 C C7 C7 tw O 3 L L _O O W M LL Q Q CD cu c-I N c-I N N M *t M M M 00 O cu on m d 0 Z U w 00 CL w X Wa c z z o Q Z z_U � w O Z0 V 00 0 m Z O Q 0 N !. c cu c cu co O 4• N m O m a ,N c 4> 'C: 4 — m E cu = V co L co �''— O L co L C co _= O N C um -0 CL-C O > +J L E> W M c 6- C-0 U CL-C Q a co U U U a m 0 LL A N CL N a _O > o CL = a a) obu o oc Q a 0 wo = c O N 4, p o an C y- O Y N O N y L a N 4y -0 C U u L CL4— M O O _ 0 W ,2 4— cuN O O CL o N w O 4' 3 0 dA L CL N dA L> 41 'L N cu = i >, N u CLC C cuL 3 >O CL +� N m o m > S V m L O N N 3 u > cu CL CL m O +� u O aA > O In CL4� M .^ - O m CL w m cu o w L cu cu a N C (o C E O m a 4- L on C C N CL 4' c cu O O O U L m N �_ on V p c 3 OL '� O cu Q U co CL CO a CL co mgc>o E N N "- O O on O L N m N C C N +- C dA N a-' M C C m C L a-' C N C 3 E M H N L i O m C C C N -C 4J M c L O O N C O N-E 0 0 m V CL � C (0 3 on N -0 rl .+-' C CL O a-' L co (n "" on 4— C C (o Q N O N O N OL C— N C O 'U U c O O O N '�•' 3 O 3 4�N co C� O �' N C co m �' O N-le C C-0 N Cl _ (o O N a-•' O L f0 N -C -C N (o O p "- N-C p �' C O N CO �O ,=• m U C M N co on U O+ •i -0 co > }CCCL O +' `1 '' N 4- M N L dA C N N 4� 'yp- i O u +� N 0 O N G C +� u C L N co O u !_ co ate-' �! O N N N O 4— cNI +� u .L C C L N N m _ Q ,,� C O u > > NO p 3 co N > N N O 4• -0 — C co 4— N > O LL u CL CL N O O L_ CU •O �i co (o N L 4- O O a..' C C u co N N M Q N co N N L O N a, N N N — C C m O O N C a0-' N N N N C 'a-'� O U +J dA L ma C N 43- C N y- u c co N N �O C U-0 N N u O Q co N O O N O N3 a-' N C W 3 3 N-0 .0 L O N O-0 M 4- O '�•' � >• C N> N a=' C O 3 4"' � N y O O +•' O a-' O N 4- N >• � O u � � N O' a••' C C O 4J u � >� L 3 +� 0 N O � ' � >� +� u � L 3 N U c O U 4N ro N +� _ -0 +O O 4- = Q M on E cu m oA L 3 N (o (o dA N N dA U '0 4O O � E C N 3 O N cu -0 N Q +' N (LO L N •C C" m ��, •C C C O O m L N E '�'' '� N 3> U Q E L N on E 0 0 m m-0 4- E N> •� co tw .2> c O L O N co S N M N ''"' N L >• cn N N 0 >• 3 o 3 d p 4— d-' LL O L E E O c N m te a+ a Q u 3 ^ 3 ^ O cr • • • C m M N O- U O L co 4 C N E co N = U i 0 0 C tLD o_ 3 O O cu W U co N M *t M 00 O N N OA m d 0 Z U w 0 0 N w Wa 0 Z Z 0 Q Z z_U � w 0 Z0 V O E C13 W Z 0 a C9 N !. c O N Ma ° c >.CU(13 4'E 4y c> c cuo v � 3 0 E OD 40 _ = O c� '� E c O N E> a c Q U v v o o a CL 0 m a z > 0 CL = a o oc Q a O _ � tw 0 C cuonL M L C:.V CU Q O 'N cu N U > N N O OD > E N 3 0 E = 3 N L O C 'uN ^ C 7a a„' OA N LJ S V O > CL 0 �O- O tw .E mou m cd1Do -0 m c i cu C tw N L 4-; C C C N E O •O +j L O 'u NC O u NC �_ tw on w V N L 4 CU " Q co O C> oU 0 N OD Q C aD 0 0 0 v � .� 4J OD (o N -0 N > — C L V _C -0 N ^ ^ -0 4,' > -0 4' -C O ;,� >, H (o N N C L a_'' U OL C: — � OL +J E U N N 0 (o tw 0 u ^ C � >• co 3 -0 (o O — O U O U O C co — 3 (o C +J -0 3 C L N (o MCL 4 J L 41 O '�'' U co > '�'' u C y cu O (o O O y-0 N N " N aJ N N y N O-0-0 O on 4' 4- O cu U N >, CL 3 N C N-C C (o N 3 2(13 (0 (o > >� � � +J u O � C U (0 O 4 J Q .y O O OD O O O dA y C O(D C, - (o -0 N C-C N O L-0 (0 N L 3 +-' 3 O (o 4' (o C N (o L C +J _ +J - U O N C (o L -0 CL L CU O-0 N (o U >. L L OA +J wcu w O N w N E +� O u N E •E —_ co a� O OU L O0 -C L-0 w 3 45 >, 0 3 N O rl C ON 4- N L y (o cu — U c-I S N N N cu U U C O OD N O O C-0 L O N a••' U 3 O '�'' C�C G (o C ^ C 4- 3 _' V C N 4 _ " N " U o o N _a (o O N U L N (o Q U C '�"' 3 N-C (o (o O U (o N N N O � O N 0 dA C (o tw +J N C C +J O C ON O U-� m dA tLD N U L u~ O O-0 a' .c �_ .0 O aA O C •E O L N L p N "- > O O N C CL (o O O O O L O E L 3 N 3 (o O >� 3 CO C '^ E N N E-a i -0 3 O C O L +O-' U N O 'N O C 00 qp C y O N .N cu �+- M CU CL Q C U C O N O O '+- O C (0 00 N N C (o O (o � U O 3 N y U (o dA Q N a u O O c: O O >� — O +� \_ N + 4- > C d L N O U C N Q a U co O a-0 >� N N N L O 0 +J CO •- — E 0� C O Q O O 4; O O Ln > ,�..' O O L c cu m N N > L (o N WD -C N CC = +J C O N O + (Co U (o U qp _N •� y N O y L O •� :� (o y U L Up L.LO C N U O G U — N L L a N O Q N f0 L CCC_ G L Y � N 3 U u O U -0 Ou m O -0 u CL-0 O N O a m Q .� D O M M O .� 4' C N E co N = u 0 0 C tw 3 O _O O W U co M M *t M 00 0 ('n cu aD m a 0 z U W O O w X Wa c z z O a z z_U � w O z0 V COO G m z O a 0 N !. m �a _ i O a00 u _ _ N O Q A � a O 0 C' ai a, ao oc ¢ ao O O 5 N u S 0 aJ a aJ O Q N M > -0 O N -0 —_ on a- -0L O C 4-; N -0 M O cB p Zon C N K N O C ' N (0 N N N U N d� }; dA n N Q) M C m 3 - (0 W N +J y 3 +J *' N _N N .n N C N N N .0 N dA (0 Y _ (SS *' L >-0 O n 4J M _N U N L +J N O L C> O L L m L pcu C N M 41 N m N E L N y C 0- O �— _ C 4- O N (0 - u � C in _� " C C m-0 � O O O N O m N M co U N C U -0 Q E N 4� 4- N O 4-�; tea- -0-0 Q on N O N 41 C � N O-0 O u co 4- "— O> +J co N � O L co U 3 co U —_ co O O N= 0 C 3 4J > O C Q� O U O —_ C -0 � N +� 4- .0 u O -0 U y U-0 Z N E (0 N� Q C In O L m cn n X C O N n N L -c E n N m C- C C O 4 U N - N 3 4 J 3 N O C-0 O cB N N dA U O N >• Q cn O C N m -0 C U N Q +J O +' LT O O v L u L L N N N C N -0 L N 3 dA N +- cu 3 E E +J -a (0 - vi C (0 m C cn E O E '�'' (0 U '�'' C N N N — (0 (0 C N ._ N N — N M C M H O C O ,E M a N— 3 p CL-0 -C O tw .3 4� -0 'n LO tw 3 M ME O O m"�-0a N 4, -0 N X-C N-0 C L N N OA 3 41 N " M O L M m O N 4- 4 J � V '1"� N N Cm C Y a C (SS O N N U CL C 4 C O cu 0- +- O N U U N C -0 O 4• E O> O co CO : co m O }' 3 U cB N U O N ,O N 40- O C _ N N U N +J N p CL N> N C U n m 4N ON N N M 4 J N aL, > N N '�'' O L N aL., +� 'cu � tw z 4 J .Ljtw a E OA C E N N � Q N C '> � tw 3 N rl ._ C 3 3 C CO C +� C L i C O U cr-0 O m +J O co O C C N O� O H O N U-0 J p U O U U co E y cn X w C 3 3 O Q C .� 4 +J is _ N _ O C •� u _ m W U U 00 4- O O ao m a G NQ C9 0 x a 0 Z U W 00 CL N w Wa coZ Z Q Z z_U � IJJ 0 N 20 00 0 m Z 0 a 0 !. c O N Ma ° c >.CU(13 4'E 4y c> c cuo 3 _ = O c� 4� E 0 c 0 E > cu a � cu QU U U a C 0 m a z > 0 CL = a o oc Q a = O vi cu U C C C L ro 3 G L C C 'L L O N O •ro O 3 +J cuN 0 O On > C G N 3 N L 4V O L N 4"� O on i V > cu C -0Q C ou O O a on O .E m m a m cu .a i , U c +_ > cu L cu3 •O E = -0 y cu c LJ O m p aCC' O U> Y_ w CU C G tw L t Y 0 cB E U m _N 3 N E �:+ L Q LL V_ E LL N m C O O L L CU Q O .� + U m D- O cu 4— c O W OD O O 4 4 J N U M N iJ z +' 3 — •L +J cu (0 3 CLN , i C 4J >� > ate"' 3 O C N C — 4J •CL C O -0 OA Q N m O O N O N E m O N dA d '�"� dA � co N CLCL Q p cL +- N E +1 L cu N M -0 C � O m � ,� 3 d u C c N -0 u O c� E O 41 -0 40 CU � O N � O N Q C C `+— C N U m cu U +J O cu CO U 3 C 4 J � .`0 u N co O O , O p E N U m N C N >, 'O aL N cB M L C > N O i N (0 C O Z-2— C7 +J 4- 4J O N N L +' CL� +J O on Q-C on N O-0 N -0 S C - -0 O O- m M M p� Q N 4- 4- a O C 4 J -0 O-0 3— N E ' aA N 4+ m N +J N N N > LU N -C O 4' C C— c� N m cu +J 3 4- O L N U 4, N p O +' '�'' C +-' co N m 3 (0 (0 4� O N 3 O C M N co m O C O N (13 (13=3 O N C p N N O N 0 CL on s O M N C U N N N cB co C O co +- E N +J U N +J N WAD N O .� O Q Ln m N N C •(O co N� O-C +: {A +1 .V C N >� C V N '� V L C L •N 4� (LO O 4� OL U 4+ N N N O O �— N> 3 N> } N E a0, C 4J N� 3 a N U-C N C c0 O -C C N Q� O C N C = N Y N N > O qp — N O N-0 4' u _O NC +J Ou N CC C NC co 0 U 0 L (% � .j � - 4— N U L 4J G c G 0 G 4J m 4' - 4O U M Lu 3 N D Q +� N U S m dA O N C N N •�_ U i '- � L _N 4' -0 Op C u L '- U— 4O (n m C U > C-0 3 2 3 C 4; LL — ^ •2 L rl O m C� -0 Q� N O O> O�> N >� � 3 -a m a E .� N m to u m m • a m L N U U O •� a • • ice+ E m 41 C U i 0 0 C tw 3 O _O a cu W 11 co M *t M 00 0 Ln cu ao c� a Q O x a E ou a ° >- +J cu c cu O m C � an + C 0 A Ln a E tw C O c N = 0 co O +� E L cB O cL— on C ' N cu 0 O L O > N cu C C > O O W�0 Q t u u u C d 0 E:3 A N CL y m a N > 0 -0 CL = c o oc Q a = L 4J .a 4— •� CU twO L L 4- C C-0 3 N U C N O L S V > C O U N 4J m > L C> U dA O CL OO N t 41 U N U -0 O (0 N tw U C cu 4' 3 N cu C O 4 U > O -0 _ iS C C O U -0 C O co 0 U O O j O u co C _cu L -0 a cu C:-0 0 0 >> Lcu 4' + 4— C N N N V1 U 0 0 > > N }+ V -C U 0 a-' 3 m N N L L L C L (0 3 3 0 p 3 Q Ln U O V1 CL V1 V1 U 4— cr c N 0 C cu cu � UA C 4— -0 O� N L 4J O y C cu UA ( 4- O -C L N U-0 L L 3 O y ,� C 1` L O N C C (0 •USA _ w w p p (B 3 (0 (0 O OL N C _O N N C L U L C OU E 4 J O O 4, E' U N -C N 4- tw > O O E In m� -0-0 I L -C +J 41 O C O O Q L N tw O� Ln O U cu aA p C p O CU > 41 U aJ O p p-0-C c I co N - 4 Q _3 N U O N co O N N N -C 4- '-' O c-I j u �i� v3i 3 t- co L m m-C > C C Q_ _ N N `� C -0 � N +J N N O i i tw C C C on E s co L a E +' +� N N O N m ._ > L-0 C C L L 0 co 0 0 cu O � c p Q O 4- p= tw U 3 U E p m OU O O +' O O •O U C CL N C O (0 w N 4— dA cn + ( OA O .j7, 3 N a"' N U y C C N > C N O N = m N N C OD L N- C L M C " N ,�,,, C OA CL C OU m cu N 0 CL'n - C OU 0 L L E d> '- O X-a cuN E N N N dA 4 J � O ON dA CU CU� O O p L cu t� 4J N_ LJ Q U C m N — u -0 3 N M U O m CL tw u G: O_ 4y L C u > C N U C L N UA (,u N In V1 N L L� N C N N cu cu>>m 3 -_ O+ N L •O > N 40- O CU O C O tLD p 4- p O dA. E^ +- L O N N C U O U C tw > N O > v 0 .V N 3 U N— co C �_ u U c C rl C c-I -C 'L >. O C C M LO (0 ' !. OD tn N m N 'y cu > fp ate'' N CL 4 J .L -0 N 3 .� +J 3 'L U C� y 4 J N (0 Up -0 N-0 N N m C- C +J (C0 m U N O C Q 3 3 3 cu U N-0 V1 Q CL O OU +� !0 U (SS C N W N O Ucu on on U W 45• • • • • (n U Q Q ;- O NCOLO C N E m N = u p 0 0 C tw 3 O _O O W cu U co Ln M *t M 00 r-I O l0 N OA m d L NQN V O x a 0 Z U W 00 CL w X Wa c Z Z Q Z z_U � w O D Z 00 0 m Z O Q 0 c O N ou a (13 ° >. 4' 4y CU c > o c C 3 40 _ v = 4- c� O E 0 c O E > a C: Q u u u o o a C 0 m a z > o CL = a o oc Q a L L •� N N _cu L L L L N M On C 4- N 4- onc !+ N M L O-C N L O C N U m44:f CU On N i (0 O � N M N N On N dA u On M ' L O 4� N = v c:� l u L S O 4� -0 o >, +J 3 co CL '.uC O O CL-C co co 40 CL On G U cu On c - N +J 0 On 3 CU on C: C C L y onC O O M O 4O C Q -0 4- 3 an On O E i C > U 4- O N CL Q a o On v-0 a i p O � N N O C > p 4� ^� 3 On a -C 4J -0 N > �O 4' E u3 O m =C: p 0 ULA E �OO > U O 4� M O N 1-0 O On -cOnOO OO �C • O ;H�•= M �La' Nm U +- U N 007 4_003�L4_O _� on4= �NO > N O N m O }Op N > EN Ou > m U> _p C N N C N W s> O p O-a E N '� M u u"� H> H -0 N N C 3 0 0- C p p, O Q >, `n N� C �� _ E N L Q O M m _ O U � 11 > c N p N� L— O M L L L p� u co co L N -C — u On O O p U N E E N Q N N N C E on N U N 4+ p 4- C L a'' N L N 4' 'InO N N p 3 N p— N O L N 3+ .0� u= L O >CU -0 � "- co O — _p O O O L N L co `� On > O CL m On p p aL N O 4— Y N W 4 J N a- W W � W CU -0-0 Q " � (B N c O L _3 -1 N +J C -0 U N M .y U-C C' L 3 > N L `n L p N +J LL 3 L +J N O Q O On 3 +� O CL M c L N L C 4+ O U 3 L 4 J O U N �.� C 3 On 4� N O� O E N '+- N O U� � L C On C On C 3 On E y 3 0 (0 3 N"4- O O O U U co co O co � N N O u L O O N N— co C '� 3 LL '5 -0 U U`^ p p N .4� +J p —_ p L L N N> p 3 4J p, N 41 C X p -CU C CN G L Q L C E N-0 C N 4- (0 L '�"' p, N C u O� � CU C 4- N O " C _ - N- u +' 4 J '0 On n N O N cu cB N u U Mn C O cB O O m M CO C c 0 W U m' 'In-C4, m O M p+ 4J � +� 4J C= a= " CL CC p L L H N N +' L (O LT ,�•,, L N 3 'N OA L p C N N L 4- >` 4- E L LL L L c O O Q O (� C Q G N 3 cu 4y CL O U C >' � 5 +� +� >' O +� :�: - m O a3•' 4J N � > N N 3 (0 O N p N p O p co 4- u u C O L U O C 3 O 0 C n -' C T N +_' N N L CD U LL U L-0 U� (0 (0 (0 (0 4- LT L m-0 N Q N U E cu U O s' O 3 O ce+ iv on W U U c-I *t M 00 0 r- cu On c� a 0 z U W O p w X Wa c z z o a z z_U � w 0 Z0 V 00 0 m z O Q 0 !. m �a _ i O u 40 _ _ N O Q A � a O 0 C' ai a, ao oc ¢ ou O O 5 N u S 0 aJ a aJ O Q (0 N y C N 4 ; p C � L p 0 0 p- C C o co N O~ ON N OA O C aJ > L O u> co a) L u u -a- co 2, 'cu O N aJ O a C U O N > " > N-0 m Z m OD N C 3 - Q N u co O C N N O u 4— O a 3 0 "— L 3 C N O N Q> L N +J co ' L N O p U N_ N U .L O C p� N 3 (0 O C- N +J NO CU y 4_ OA •N U i co > > O U C �_ M m 4, L CL N O N N O U a' ' O CL u L O N c N m U O -a 3 u> N C M 4— N E L Q-C OA N N u-0 N O C Q p"� O u� m Q N N M cB Z LL .�_ N L < m L -a C �O OA �O u N -0 �0 E > -0 � 3 O + (B L >. 4J -0 41 +' 'i N O" O N -0 U On cu N N +>—,—, D � u +� c W 3 N O+ 0 O �_ C OA i -0 O 4' N Z m cu � u � E� cu O- Q C O .0 �O O 3 _ -0 co H +� O N 0 OA O u m cB N�� O co N O L p-0 > m +� cB w O O +� m N u C p L p O U N tOtw u -0 �' E u CL C N " N p O O 3 co C +� C O O L OA tw -C tw m E N u CO — O O > O 3 E c N C N N C N i N _N 'i O _N co �' � Y c0 4� >. N L CO •� U O +J L aJ N cL COIn QI > U L •L O L 3 U 4- O Y U Y L 4- L Q) N y 4y Q N N 'N L aA O a, O C A L L co aA N N 3 O +, �_ �_ O N co N N O O y L O U N N N+ — E E O N O O N O O O OD OD N Op U CL u u c0 F N LL L LL o C G L-C (0 c-C L• Q p N L Q pA N •� C C >>' (0 (0 aJ N• N N C U Q N C C m N 4V 4V U +� L N y N L ice+ _ E _ 0 0 = m W U U OO 4— O OO O On m a L Q V 0 x a 0 Z U W 00 CL w X Wa c Z Z Q Z z_U � w OD Z0 V 00 O m Z 0 Q 0 N c O c O N_ N_ w m a (o 4� c >- 4' y C a) 4� > c (o 4+ >' �_' 4y C a) 4-;' C > c •0 O (n � � CpC G OA (n � � CL CCU G OA O A C a- O p y C m C 4- O p 4� m c C O N > E> N cL c E> CL� Q u u u m m a U U U m m a N N N a O > O > .� a) cu in O a a C L = o 0 oc Q a a OA O i N O C co a) C si � �CL C O CL - p 4; cu c p OL , , A U N C a) cu a) u O O O i O a> p a 4- L44�_ Q�O tw C C Q O OA ^ co O a) a) i > 4- 3 C i a) a) a) '� C a) O u +, 4- OA C o O on +, q_- O 41 _N N 3 U N C N E� C U L U c C O .O L c _ V a) Q M a) _� a) p a) C " a) CL 3-C aJ co O � O O 0 N p +, OA O-0 4= U OA d (o U on -0U o- E a) L tw a) L (o E U a) -C C i L L p a) tw a) c cu �i + an ri c O `� tw � C CU O 0 O E a) C ma a) p N N C C p c: . p O (o I-- u � N W u — (o u OA O � O (o a m +, OC U CL tw p co W o tw c p m u On c u an E o _ C _ > {u _ u 3 E M� L •> 4- U C 3 OA C i p U u .E O C 'i .�., NCL Q d Q OA Q Q (>o C d d Q OA U C 4- a) 4 a) L 1A 4• L (0 cu 3 •N (Li •L >. OA p .� Lcu L (Li N a., � C > a) � ci -0 p C i p O OA i (o a) O U .0 (0 3 .� > a) aL, C L 3 C > _ N .0 C OA a� '0 — C a) N L L a) p a) 0 0 (o u C 3 (o O C (o Q O O C CU a) N OA > E C N a) .0 o U L L 3 C O a) E O OA O Q- 4y +' � c a) O N � L a) u — W C 4- > a., a) O �_ p a., ma C L) a) a) 4- L a., O > 3 C O O� 3 .N on � L (o O a O co O O a 3 u> N O E O N u O 4w (o O N 'C 4= O � u (o co O U > 4' -0 L 4• "- s 0 N O •C C O (o O L O OA Q U 3 s u C Q C -C U 4- Q L O —_ (o a) a 4' O 3 U (o p (o m a) a•, O N OA O U L (o O a) a) .0 - C 'Fa - O 00 M ate-, OA N E M 4�N (o N +, E >' (o o4� (o C U a) a) a) M O �_ +, u N �� i CU U a) a) N p a) (o O a) > C O U 3 a) Q U j 3 a) C C > 4- O > +' f 0 > L a., (o O�— C U a., -0 a) C u O E O L N > U u (o O O (o u a) a) C ,4; a) L N O O C (o > C cn 4- cn N p w m a Q cO (Lo N O co O C Q " u W M Q O O '_ 0) C CU OA u O O OA 'N U Ln O O > +, (n O N p O N U� u U Ltw O a) '' O a) ma " Q tw m '' OD O _ O +, L a) (o u 3 0 _O a) _O _O c 0 .}, a) N _O _O OA 0 p Q - CL u U 3 C a) p p (o p � u U Q� cu i C > a j C •� 0 C 0 C O o C fp N (o C L .� u _O a) X a) .S O C a) 4_ E L (o (o C O C O (o L .0 co a) a) —_ = 3 cu L p p O C O Q 3 0 u m O > a) L u a) (o m a) a) N a) O N a) O (o ON N co a) a) N N a) U co 4, co L a V1 (o a) -C +, () a) CL +, -C +, L -C OA C� a) -C +, -C H (O (O a L (o U L co L -C N 4- O a) L X O (o (o 4, (o C � � N OL OD L 0 p 3 ±2 O O 0 N on a) W 11 U (D (� N I !. c O c O N_ N_ M m a y (o C � >• N .� > C (o 4+ >• 4y C N 4� c > •0 O (n � B- G � (n � B- G � 0 40 9A = a- p O 4y C m C 4- O p 4� C C O N N E> CL C E>� c cLo cu U cu U cu cu Q U U m m a U U m m a N N N a O > O > .� cu cu in O a a C L = o 0 oc Q a a ao 4_ + O > o o _ 3 }' > L O on U au c E L cu4- N O C p U c OA C-0 cL � oon,ni Op Q O C N N a m CO G � O N qp L O E L O OA L ,� i i CU O 4 '5 L Cu G V L \ N V O L C s 0 O O N L tw CL O N U O O ZOC CL O L a L C N CL p co ia U L u m U On co u 4— L +J p L p N E C L C i dA -0 U O � +_ 2 4' •� C Ncu 41 CL C 0 y .y (O N �-• (u N >• 4-;' > C co N C O N � O � O 4V � O oC L co o co c E O 4- o c O 4' +, C 4J M 4J 0) 3 O 4, = +, U 3 3 OD a� > N E " u O co U OA U U O tw `n (o }' (o 4' O N i m C O p (o a-� N� N u > 4- C L 4 J N OA L 4 J N `1 3 C N> cu cu � .y Cc: Cc: O wFj � N O Q U cu to 0 U cu a O C a 1 OD U cco � OU O N a-' N O-0 u u O> C C On � O .c -C- .y .y _ � 3 •� L L co -0 -C C i OA N N - N CU L O 3 p N O 3 O U O � O LL '�. U .� N-C G US .� _ C� O � N �C G co 3 O 4 J co C co N OA C 3 U O N '1 C O C m� G ON c G .N y L � U u ((� N :y -C O (Si 4- E 4O L m m � In 4— U O {n 4� CL N tw C L vi - (o (a co � \ L co 4— O 'n L (BCL C N 3 y t-C _ — C O O co U O-0 tw C cu -0 U O U O aA CO S 4- C C 4• 4— N N L— C '� tw p .N C (o C G � � V1 N U N - 3 y CU M C r,4N� (o cu CU y +J C o N " 4 J O N (co an .� 3 -0 (co � 'p �C to O >, Q L 3 N co N OO � O tw a C N 4+ — 4— 4� 4— N u O .y L _ N N 'L N 4— '1-.� O V1 O M N a-•� , � N U M O � L O � (o '� +, O C N (>o L > N (o N\ N m C U � n t � (o tw 4' Q Q y� 3 U X co O N O N u-C -I C N oO — 3 4 O N _ U p U N 4 J U N OA p C •> u O O O O m O N N N 3 C N N O N N-C N f0 - O Q 3 4- O r (o 44 ^ cu dA p N C ^ U Q '0 c N m to 1n �� O� O� O m 4— U p On 4O O 0 0 E 3 cu -C p Q cu 3 CL co O E —O w 3 N� 4� U C 3 p �- O O m u 4- Q N �O N L •O L fp U U C O U L C N on y L U u O L M �' V > (o OG N 3 N o LO N N U N p c • � N C CO O O O co 4— O U L N N> U .O N> O +� N 41 a.^ M U-0 I_ OO C G L C C (o C (o 4— N L L O d � 2 N O N L N 4— L O U UM O L (o L2 N • y 4— y EN \ 3 N GC = N O Oi L L O co co cu .y N � N N co co O W U 2 2 Z � O OO *t M M r-I 00 O O r-i N OA m a NQN C9 0 x a 0 Z U w 00 CL w X Wa co Z 0 Q Z z_U � w 0 N 20 0 C G C13 W Z 0 Q 0 N c p 4� c N N C L tw a 4� d E O G CC (0 L _ = 0 +�E N m � a O Op +- (13 O N N Q u u u a co O cuCL m a _p z > o -0 CL = a o oc Q a ao o > _ cu0 cco c: 4— L cu = 3 cuO O on m 0 U O N O � � Q On C 5-y L L C CZ = V O N u — O a m O 0-0 N N N CL C N 0 0 O 0)= O y oc tea- 4J 4J 0)0 M I-- Vl N U OA 3 3 0 > U V1 O N O O Q dCL WD M 4o N o C O C> O c O L '=' O w w C O u C N � C N , U O 'p > N U N (SS U U N_ O N O L U N p M CL 4• N> > L O p N 4— N L L pL N y c U 3 CL p.- 3 L M .� 41 N 4L— O C y y CL C N L N L 0 U L N N a O O N N N +� di3 O N co > (O N p C== — O 4— cup L U cu U L � N O N O U _^ O dA w co p U L � 2 -0 O N C- cu cuN-0 N C C C C: N-0- CU 3 L N N ^ -C 4- +- C U N +J +, N L 4' C cu i 3 O N O M 4- p 4- C CL Cl O N CO CL (0 N 3 p U C N 3 N Q m N +J CU C U O O p CL O N-0 O — y (B (UO N '-0-0 4� M U C on U U 0 U � +J > On cu u �_ 3 O E N -C p cucu C 4, +J co O N 3 ON M C 'cu L O N L C N 'In+� L N C O L M N cuN N 3 dA C y L > 4O C M N C 3 p '- C cn N L y N 4O N +J U C U L 3 U O C M 4� (n U 3- N ''-' U C O O C L 3 U m E C 3 4• O U 4- a-� C> U N -0 N- C C N N X E m 4- S "_ qp +J S (0 '> N > v3i .4� N O C O N U C C C (0 N N C m E m C U E O U N CL i 0 0 N 4+ N N p C C 0 N 2tw c co C O L N _� O N O 0 O .O N 'M O co u. U L U L O p U C C � L � U O 4� 3 Cl Cl 4 a� tD C CL -iz N N N U �_ ) L N N > N ,�CL O ((j U Q N U N a- 4- CW > y N L C 3 N y C C N U N 3 N 2 U C � O N L � U u L�U L � N OU OU W� cu cuOU N 4� N m 0) N cUo H U O H m 4- O 4' is C O = C L O L CL N V � _ m W U N c-I *t M -i W -I O cu on m d 0 Z U w 00 CL W X Wa coZ Z Q Z z_U w OD Z0 V 00 O m Z O a 0 !. 0 0 0 0 d 41 (:� y � L cCu .y ro cCu L O .y � L cCu O 4y C � cCu L O •0 0 0 (n >O G > (n G � (n G � (n G �O i U �O U �O U �O U r 4�L 4�L 4�L 0 N CL CL CL CL Q U U d U U d U U d U U d L CL L CL L CL L CL p p O O a > > > > .G cucu in 0 V 0 U U U U Q, C N N N N H N t�G O O O O OC Q a a a a = O O Y*C L N 0 c 4— O (0 C C C u OO O CL O — dA 4� CL N vv CL uU CL N u O E O O U0 O OC U (o N O 4,O O O -C i�dLC- L m Q C OuN O N>OO 4� 4' 4� 4' O 4� 4' CL Q ( O L L LLLL L = E> C U N O O U N 4_ U O O N tw N O +� 4- 4'O U � 4- p 4- U CL O CL O CL O N N p 41 N L N N •� N C Q CU Y L Y N U u L 4 L 4- O � •- � C •- � CL (13 O O N 4 N +J N ((3 U M dA U 3 - CL 3 N C +J N C +J C 0 N U O -0 4- C L N O U U U 0 N U E O N U E O M O( > u M -0O O CU M O Q CL Q CL C 0 C O O (moo CL CL cu CL CL 4— V1 tw U m 4� 4— 4— {J L CU 4-p +� = 3 CU CL V C)- (B L S ,�, 4— Q Y N 4y N 3 N i N 4 N > O U 3 U N N 3 CL O CO C O N O N 3 co C p CY 3 cB cu O U -0 + t C N 0 E '(j 0 .tw N CL > +J O -0 c m U >, co O c0 C L f6 -0 U U on >. N p CL y ,dA L N CL C (0 > •� O O 4 J OU 4 J = M au 3 — N cu ago +J L �} N C (0 +' >• (o N N> C 'In On O 3 N CLN U N O = O C :� U E C �O O pp M c 0 � Ov 0-0 O O • p� �3(B C N p Q N L 4J O p NC (B C +J 3 V 0 Q CU o -0N Qp m > o U CLo 3 U .. (0 C O C O .O G '- f6 C N � C N N-0 C L L C C On '> 'CS 3 3 N 41 U C N> - C N — 0 (B m C6 .N O 41 3 L N OU E OL 4�N 4- E N N 3 m 3- w M N i O LJ O .E aj O> CY O O O > C C 41 O= C N M CL -0 .> C 3 •� CL , L L ro E S= I U m coNC1A Z U H N (O 0 U CO CL 44- 4 J C ice+ O O O O = Y Y Y Y N ( ( 4� ( 4� ( 4� E4� = O O O O 0 CZ CZ CZ CZ O N N N N W LL N N N N c-I c-I c-I c-I *t M N M M M M Ln 00 O N c-I N on m CL !. mco 0 0 0 0 0 d 4' � c 4' � � 4' � � 4' � � 4' � c (:� __ f' 41 C O L O .y C O L O 4y C cu L O 4y C L cuO .y C cuO L .y C •0 0 (n G � (n G � (n G � (n G � (n G > (n i i i U i U i U _ = O +� •co cB ._ O +� cB •co ._ O +� •co m ._ O +� •co M ._ O 4� m ._ O 4� •M � � w t w t w t w m: SO G Q .t U U d .t U U m d U U m d U U m d 2 U U d U U L cu CL L cu CL L cu CL L cu CL L cu CL L cu CL O O O O O O — a > > > > > > M 5- CU cu cu cu cu cu N 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 U U U U U U Q• C N N N N N N H 0bb 0 O O O O O OC Q a a a a a a r U U U U U U = C C C C C C 0 CL CL CL CL CL CL +•' 3 N 3 NC 3 NC 3 NC 3 NC 3 NC c C G G G G G G 0 U p 0 -C U p 0 -C U p 0 -C U p 0 -C U p 0 -C U p 0 -C O O O O O C L O L N L L N L L N L L N L N L L N L L O L= O L= 0 d d d d d d O O O O O O a) a) a) a) a) cu m m m m m m •� -I- a. N L -I- 4y N L - 4y N L - 4y N L - N 4y L -C V1 4y L N O 4— O 4— O 4— O 4— O 4— • O H 4y N y N y N y N y N y N C O E U 2 N U 2 N U 2 N U 2 N U E N N U E 2 40 >- O N >- O cu >- O cu >- O cu >- O >- O N Q M a L Q N 4_ M a L cuM Q 4_ a L Q cuM 4_ a L Q 0)M 4_ L a Q cuM 4_ L a Q N 4_ N 4- O O y L cu cu L m Zj w C C 3 L (0 -6 L M on C N c0 4 N N L +•I F, C C � N L F, +•I C M ^ 4J C O p N O �' ^4� 4J C cB N 4, N 3 O N 4- N O oO 4- N C O U N N �" U p p U E N U -0 H N E U N N O m u .O E .O CU > 0 C p O C (0 C 3 4J N Qj V N C N CO = u N > 4- 0 > O O N c O N > U O CO O 4-COM L O> .O O �_ O C O N .O O C C O C Q =CLO N N L CL O Q O -C +J O y L CL Q � L `� C L cL CL L O N C� +� L C� —_ cB � +� � N C_ -c y' E y o y 3 _ E N -0 on rop N E > �, >, L +J >, >, N C U Ln U ON (B N O U � 4J U +J N (0 N y- M N m m N m .O fV i O L -C 4J N (0 C c0 E y N Op 3 CY CL cuI - ,J cu� Z N i m OL cu 1-0C cum� 3 C 3 3 m -C__ cu -0 -0 M 4� N _ M C� tw M CL , 3 m O C 4— 4_ z 4— 0 O O U > �' p U 0 ul 4,0CL -0 U cn 41 C N C M N 4y O N N +J N C H N L on N > C (0 C (0 on 4= N C (0 (0 N C C O 3 C (0 C N (0 C O C cu C OU CU C u N C O y C M 4y UU C L (0 4y C UU .- N 4� -0 N 3cu +I' 3 O Vl fC M U> N > N C L N 3 m U N 3 N N +J N p N N L O 43- O c0 Q-C 4 4' +� C O Q O N �� � O Q O +� 4- 0) N 0 U O >O s 0> C C +� 0 C +� 0 Q -C O N CL P Q 0 = 3 0 •O p L ''; p m 3 Q 0 0 C 0 � O O L N 3 O v 0 -0 N C C CO O O 0 31010 S o O N D o C N O o N O C N .E +J OC O C N +J cV 1.>_ C> N C +J 00 N vi N M •O O U 3 N +J p .O p 00 C p 0 � m O y N i m O N O L O O O p E U L CL O N N-0 OA 3 3 L a N 4' N L CL N N .y C L N L (0 3 O N L .y p 3 L -0 L C_ N co - N O N O co N = O co O U co L O O co G Z U CL Y 4L- Z Y � N S Y U � N C (n 10 Q N +Z m V1 Q U N ice+ O O O O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y N (0 Y (0 Y (0 Y (0 Y (0 Y (0 Y = L O L O L O L O L O L O O CL CL CL CL CL CL 0 N N N N N N (0 C (0 C (0 C (0 C (0 C (0 _ W M LL I N I N I N I N I N I N *t M l0 M I" M 00 M 0) M -i M r-I 00 O M r1 cu on m d NQN C9 O x a C O 4� C N 4. > C C O m O O 4J N O i C O 4J N •L O (n (n OP J (n V G i U '+- (o G i U 4- (o O G i 's_ N .0 Z-C N N N 4- f0 C G 2 O +J L co ._ O +J L CC O co C C-a 0 3 +J -a O 0 O c CC L O co C C O w CL-0 >` (o CL-0 >` co G > CL d OA � >` G (o > CL C m N 3 N 3 0 0 0 C 4- C C L +J O N N G Q d u u a U U U a (o O (o Q LL U U Ucu a L Q L cu L cu O O O a 'c cu cu cu c V 0 U U U p, C N N N H N � O O O OC Q a a a Up U N > OD OD C OD C i m > m Q (o LO M-0 L O OA OD O 0 Q 3 41 O Q N C N m 4� C LUA C (o •L .O L = u CL .0 4� O 1 C O N -C \ u 0 cu 0)O � U ob d\A C a L L L U i O U � C C � L O +' L O O _ .0 > O O Q co C co (o > CL m CL m u O a O o N (o H U a a On a tw cu a cu On CU i (o C m LL OL L C C >, O •� N N O 4� -0 O ;- • M � tb N iS 4y 4- O L "a N N C N CL (o L O 0 C O co L O N O C C C O E L O U 4 > C Q 4, L u a nj � Q roo - cQ E O O O +� +� 4- N L2 N N tw C, L C a.+ >- O N > O i N L u (o u (o ^ C 0 u 3 u � (o N > O U N (o C 'C N O Q C Q (o d L Q cu L d Q Q L L O U U U O L Q L d L O 3 u-0 O L2 0) (o d 4- N (o H H (o O-C N OD L Y N o -0 O N N O _ O iC - '�' 40- 4 N v1 C O y C y +i C +� .� O y .� 4J N 3 N L O O� 3 +J 0 N 0-� E O >- O 3 N dA M z O C OA C L tw 3 O O-C-0 M-0 4J tW C L CL C� O 43 C 3 OU +J N .0 E" N L N-0 Q N N (o N N 3 C L O. - (o u L O O> N O O y O •co O - �> (o +J C U .L O N LL O Y N (0 C 3 C c 4- 3 4- _� O -C 4- N V1 4' N O L (y� � N CU N � � V1 Q-0 O O N �_ i -0 O C O u O N 0 4' C� +U 4� C O co O OM N (Co — N E O V O� m -0-0 C p� N 3 3 _ •O N (o Q —_ (cu -0 C (o - -0 4- 3 C u OL N L � N L L > (o r'I — (o c N (o O L ,O OD 4- O- N O N O aj N N O > N y C OD > co a' C E O 'L u E N B C C 4J N (o C N O 4- U '� 3 0 U +J N O O N O l0 O O 3 C O +J E O N O (o O N C N M C O +, C y u N O O C> >' OA 4 co Q� N � �>, � L�� co C O U C, J -C O U y CL N N 0 O U U (o (o L 4- N U •i Y � (o N 4= (No = OL OL U C .� C �O O C O 3 41 3 Cr L w U >� C �> (o LZ N C B 3 N O N cu N C� (o C +� +J N C (o C (o N (o C O U L (o G O 3 (o N O >, L (o O - C ,�.., C `a- (o m L 3 •> `a- Q O N C O N i N y > 3 O N C 3 C 3-0 (o u— C O C O (o � O O u C OA yj 3 N (U > 4� U N 'r;. CL (o C ;� (o O C O O C U O O C 4 J N' U (o a N N U N +J N w C +� 3 m O O N N N N ,y O (o 'L 3 OU •> y E y +J c 3 E U N N d-� z .> C� O C O 4 J L 3 N � N y N 7 +� N .+-' +� G W � U z U CL O C Q m -C (o � (o Q U (o L (o (o 4� (o (o i + O O (o N Y (o z (0 L 3 y N E4� = O 4� O 3 u L O C CL N C N 3 O W lu U N N M N M *t M -i M r-I M r-I 0 Z U UJ O0 O w X Wa coZ Z Q Z z_U w O D Z 00 O m Z O Q 0 N ou d ° 0 L N s- O C C pNC O 0 0 40 Ln O G = = O N CL Q u ucu a A CL O y _ m a N > o 0 CL = a o oc Q a ou � ro c cd 0 _ - -0 O O U O OA N OA U � C L tw U S V C L 4�1 N C 0 CL O � ago U d Ll � 3 C >` L (O •� L V1 O C y p L 4' 'L OA O O N O N O � _ 4 LJ � U OL O C C U M m V 3 L CL CL m OJ Q N Q Ln L.L (O .N C 00 4- 4- 0-o OJ - N U 4N -0> On47, tW N O .0 N tW L +' +-' p •U U +� O p C N '�'' 1 +- — O -C C m y ,� a'' (U C C CL _ 4- N C C cd CU 3 y C O N (O cd w N N L O O 4� 3 N U ^ N N CL N -0 CU m_ •L co p G N N 41 4— N z-c '� O L •N OA CC3 p p N O N p N Q CL N cu m �•I- i LJ 3 G N -6 4— Q 4V _O CU N (O C U •L C C _N O +J E N N N >. � 4 J C > N -0 CL-0 L +� •� z O U N > L— 4, — (O O .� cd N C CU N m N 4O N p L M N U 4— (O 4' � N .0 � N Z cd C C — W cu N N N N 4- OD d3�D L , O-c M 0 0 CU N� _ a-•� Q S a.., > N -> > E i L c: C >` .0 N L N� Q = � E� (O (O � 4- N 3 O U N C — O 3 C N M N"� - C " N C ;cU �, C U N C U U N N C 3 p L O 3 O - '�'' N-0 a U C C C 3 N 3 O OA cd on O On O O 4— O u O H —_ C C C C O L O U 4- N N OA L - L N— y UO N •� cd -0 N 7 m Ln O ,.,_ -C N CL O CL O 00 +J O OL 3 O� _ Q C N N _ � O N �i� O N O N L N L N O L Q -1 O O 4� O (O N N' C N C N U N— OA N C O C C � N Ccu co O U 4- rl � .L .L co C-0 CU 'on > 1 cC0 Q L O d3�D 4 J M�� N OA C O C C N N N (O N .� N 3 3 CL N E c 3 3 N C 3> N 3� O y 3 O N > O 1 > O N 'i N C d d aL'' N N N N C p M 3 u +J N-0 N N OA 'C N N C .+-' N O C O O , U O C N 3 N CL O N O N Q C = O -C L p Ll N = 3 cd OA +J OD N 4J N cd U m Ln 4- H U .� C N C cu s� i O +_ u �> W U Ln c-I *t c n -i Q O x a 0 Z U W 00 W X Wa co Z Q Z z_U � IJJ O Z0 V C0O G m Z O Q 0 N � 4- � CU 4� 1 o ON a o� L 3 C O C� co co c O > 0 o U L co i N CL N N (n '+- >O E > OA N i c N N d- N V (0 O N OA N i L CL - OA cu C G 0G Q c L Q W V u (0 u cu 3 3 a co (n m Q W cu Q _ m a _O z > o 0 CL = a o oc Q a _ O L O si u � N O E "- O CL ++ = c O c co OCL cu U on cu O +J On +J a N CL3 u m •— -0 c O — u c CA u O o u N 3 N "= U O +3 41 L N U U NCL ;+_ u L p Q E (J O o CL u u CL-0 m— V1 > u cu tw C c •� N 3 c N c c c cu3 c y 4" M +� (0 O 0 ate'' o Z 6 E 0 dcA cu �-' 0 61 OA N OA U 3 0)u M U a-' 3 CL on3 U .y L L C tw L L � 3 Q " O a CL O CL CL O an . On u on u m u Q c c OnN i N u +O• O c0 : IL O OCA c U O cu•U U on L cu m Y on H O O N ^ O OA � > +� c O cuUCA N N p � N �_ c C G � W 3 W on ,In 4; � c U L 4-; p N O N p u u N N CU p c a>, 4, -I- N +J O N �i� c '-o �_ c N c — O� O c _N N N N Q E cu CO C u O_ -C C c tw N dOD O O _ +J 3_a N O� L N tw tw +J N L L L N OA N > c p M 41 N U 3 (0 M i OA C� N 4- _3 C 3 dA c Q • 3 N N L = N L N i 4J " N m E p— N > O L N 3 O — L M c N_ •�_ S S tw c Q O m 4- L Y _N -0 _ m cu O N L O c cu N L c On M� U tw M O u N N cu OA O � c c� _ E � 3 N _ 4- 3 E N O L _ c Q O> N N N c E c OD c N p tw c O '_ _ E� +' O U m O U co ,O vi L L p O� L tw p '� 4� c p co co O L N +J L -J O O O 3 O L O U OL N c OU O c N N i tw N O � u u>� c0 N � O U" C CL c C c 4J N L N m 'L 4J M (LO OVA > C +� N c w � tw 3 N M L �-' U y U U i c G >' c cu w � O OA c � 4- O CU m O O L N � �_ c > N N-0 _N C ++ 3 N 'L OA O N W Op u 1 OA L u O E m m N n L U 3 O L O L 4- cu O U L L L cu 40 co c •C u d O N L >cu N 0' M >O cu E p O C� OA E p 3 CL 4� .� U 3 (0 > W > 4- W L (0 W C � cu cu CmC L L O 4- V �> W U �n c-I *t M N 00 O cu On m d 0 Z U UJ O0 O W X Wa c Z Z O Q Z z_U � w OD 20 O C G C13 W Z O Q 0 N m O pp d � L OA •O = 0 N O 0 :2, (n E � cu on 40 = O � M ,U C •U .� a = Gi >` L CL > N Q U U CL W (n CO (n cu CL1. �.+ _ m a _O z > 0 0 CL = a o oc Q a N O OA OA = •L (o N L U C O C C LCU > O 3 i•+ O cu4, (o CL C> C Q N- > -00 � E a; Q- u co 5-a u C c > 3 OA N U i (o i L 3 CU N U L N -C .� Ncu cu E U N U N 0 OU -0U = L Q W Q OA OU U OU OA O c N -0 U u C C i-C 4, � +- � 3 N C > C N oD C cu u M� O CU M O OC C C U a U a On _ cu w On 3 N C 3 E tw >O L N O C N Q U C L C CL W Q OD u muU C � C C N mC C 41 � C N N N mU 4- '� C 'a- (o C O (o U C N +j CL N =3 on N E N u Q � C U> m_ > O OA N on 0cucu�O Ocu N C cu C 7a cu U c C L > O 4V 4- > L O •S m N OL u > CLm U Q_ 4� C mL > +3 (o U m>' 0)0 CN C N O L N (0 _3 _I-L OU t O •O co on L O O L .0 O Q In N E OA O cuC cuu O O 0 3 O O u U u U-C L, 4 co U C �p 3 0 O U co Q U > 3 OU o O N (o '�'' +' Q N ma M N N •O C CO C O " CU N N 3 U O co .0 � u U O (o L ,,,,, O L w w O 3 L W O N N 4J N N C ma 4� N L " > N -0 cu 4- C C c 4, Q C i U 4J N N U U O O O N C N C N co O > 4' +J N (o N i O C 3 .0 U O .� N C L M u N N C N cL (o O N CO ` ma U N _3 O C O }+ O > S co C +� N +, N (0 N ,C C OA N N L tw O L C N -0 4J U 'i > .V U y N C N C O U E C 4- (0 3 3u tw O U C N __ '�'' U O u c tw 'N E > cu u' N in (o ma C N N (0 C N 4— p N N >O _� 3 U 3 O > C O W N C CL w V co L lu L u E L U O X O N (o U W 4— • • d N CL (o U N L ice+ C C cu s� L O +— W U c-I *t M M co c-I O r- cu OA d 0 Z U W 00 w X Wa o Z Z O Q z z_U � w O �= 20 00 O m Z O N Q C9 N t v c 0 n Ln v L cu L ro N L cu i 0 cu I cr cu N N ro cu c 0 0- cu 0 Q v v co v E c 0 +Z co W ZI E v 0 co 4- 0 v u c co .Q E 0 u W c �L N cu 4- 0 c co a1 E co Q 4- 0 L 0 u V cu L n cu 0 N L 0 Q CU L cu V .Q E 0 V L ro W a1 W c E I 0 co 0 co 0 ao a RESOLUTION NO. P20-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2018121009) FOR MASTER CASE 18-089 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126), INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 18-089, the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), was filed by the Project applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on May 1, 2018 and deemed complete on May 31, 2018. The property for which this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located east of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive, in the community of Saugus; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2812-008-003, -008, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812-022-031. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Architectural Design Review 18-010 for the review of the proposed building design, styles, and forms. 2. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 to allow for the gating of private roadways, multiple - family (multifamily) development in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, and for Cluster Development. 3. Development Review 18-009 for the review of the proposed physical design and layout of the Project. 4. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10 percent. 5. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 for the review of the proposed landscape plan. 6. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 to allow for the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees. 7. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone. 8. Tentative Tract Map 82126 to subdivide the 74.66-acre Project site into 19 lots. In addition, the residential lots, within the subdivision, would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximum of 375 residential units. Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 2 of 10 b. The Bouquet Canyon Project site is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City, on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive. The total development footprint, which includes off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. The Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones; with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multifamily dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site, that are designated as OS and PI zones, would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. c. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion of the Project site. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Rddgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. It is mapped as a floodplain and classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, none of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site. d. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses to the north, west, and south, vacant open space to the south, commercial uses (Canyon Center and Plum Commerce Center) to the southwest, and the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott to the east. There is a 2.74-acre parcel, owned by another party, developed with a single-family residence near the western site boundary, opposite Fan Court, that is not part of the Project site. e. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision -making body for the Bouquet Canyon Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 3 of 10 f. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. g. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for 45 days, beginning on December 4, 2018 and ending on January 18, 2019. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project. h. A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on January 9, 2019, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on December 4, 2018. Six people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern, that were raised at the meeting, included traffic, noise, dust, air quality, flood and drainage, and a transparent process. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was originally scheduled for April 8, 2020; however, due to COVID-19 measures, the site tour was cancelled. A memorandum, dated April 29, 2020, was sent to the Planning Commission, which included a project description, area maps, site maps, and photo simulations for review. j. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Bouquet Canyon Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on April 4, 2020, filed and posted on April 6, 2020, and the 60-day public review period ended on June 5, 2020, 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. Staff received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meetings for the Project. k. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on the two signs posted at the Project site. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public meetings on the Project on June 2, 2020. The Planning Commission meetings were conducted remotely consistent with public health Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 4 of 10 orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. These meetings were held at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The meetings were conducted via Zoom, livestreamed through the City's website, and broadcast on SCVTV Channel 20. m. On June 2, 2020, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, requested entitlements, and project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy Consumption, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Wildfire, and Project Alternatives). In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Bouquet Canyon Project back to the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2020 meeting with the following: 1) additional information regarding various discussion topics including traffic, drainage, the proposed row - house designs, emergency egress, recreational facilities, and bicycle parking; and 2) a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to consider. In addition to the applicant, there were three speakers in favor of the Project and one public speaker who was opposed to the Project. There were seven written comments opposed to and nine written comments in favor of the Project submitted to the Commission at the meeting. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. n. On July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting, to the August 18, 2020 meeting, to allow for additional time for staff and the applicant to respond to the Project comments and the comments received during the EIR comment period. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over various technical aspects of the Project, as well as expressing concerns over the June 2, 2020 meeting being conducted remotely via Zoom. o. On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to a date uncertain, per the request of the applicant, to allow for additional time to finalize Project details. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over riparian habitat, ridgeline alteration, groundwater recharge, and traffic. p. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow up items from the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval. q. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on June 2, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 5of10 Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project has been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. r. Based upon staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the Project site. s. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based, for the Master Case 18-089 project file, with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission of the City does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid.); b. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," (2) "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 6 of 10 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15364.); c. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; d. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The Planning Commission has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; e. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; f. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation; and g. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council find that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 18-089 (Architectural Design Review 18- 010; Conditional Use Permit 18-004; Development Review 18-009; Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001; Landscape Plan Review 19-017; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003; Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001; And Tentative Tract Map 82126) identifies and discloses project - specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows: Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 7 of 10 a. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. b. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts. d. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, is required to mitigate project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. a. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project. b. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, Bouquet Canyon Road alignment and Copper Hill Drive extension would not be built, and the site remains in its current state. This alternative would be environmentally superior as compared to the Project, however it would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A) and the objectives of the Circulation Element as summarized in the City's General Plan. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible and also would not provide any of the Project benefits. Alternative 2 — Reduced Grading. This alternative consists of a modified site plan that would limit the grading of the ridgeline and hillside on the western side of the site to only what is required for the Bouquet Canyon Road roadway realignment, redistribute units from PA-1 and PA -IA to other areas, and eliminate PA -IA. Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 8 of 10 This alternative would reduce the aesthetic, air quality, and geology/soils impacts; however, additional aesthetic and development review for compliance with the residential development standards and compatibility would be necessary. Alternative 2 is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it would result in increased building heights from two-story to two- and three-story attached dwelling units in all planning areas due to a loss of development areas in order to meet the proposed unit count and reduce the range of housing types. The resulting higher density would dismiss the input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process to keep buildings to two stories or less, consistent with the surrounding community. Alternative 2 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the Project benefits. d. Alternative 3 — Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat. This alternative would consist of a modified site plan that relocates some homes in PA- IA and PA- 2 to avoid clusters of oak trees and preserves the entirety of Bouquet Creek, except for new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and bridge. This alternative would reduce five types of impacts associated with the Project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it has not fully analyzed the hydrological impacts of leaving the entire existing floodplain in its current state (refer to the Drainage Channel Design Alternatives discussion below). The Project would be required to raise the roadways, existing transmission lines, and other utilities. In addition, the planning area pads would need to be raised, the density would intensify, and the building heights would be increased, similar to the results in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the Project benefits. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Bouquet Canyon Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find: a. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis. b. That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions. Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 9 of 10 That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Bouquet Canyon Project. d. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Draft Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications have occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the Proj ect. g. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. h. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and Project approvals. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review and consider the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2018121009), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council hereby certify the Draft Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the MMRP. SECTION 7. By the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission has not granted any approval or entitlement on this Project. SECTION 8. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Resolution P20-08 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 10 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2020. PHILIP HART, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6 h of October, 2020, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY JC:PL:rc S:ACDV!PLANNING DIVISIOMCURRLNP!2018\MC18-089 (Bouquet Canyon Realignment Project)A7. Planning Commission\6. PC Hearing — October 6, 2020\MC18-089 CBQA Resolution P20-08.docx RESOLUTION NO. P20-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MASTER CASE 18-089 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18- 010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case 18-089, the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), was filed by the project applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on May 1, 2018 and deemed complete on May 31, 2018. The property for which this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located east of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive, in the community of Saugus; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2812-008-003, -008, -013, -021, -022, -031, -900, 2812-038-002, and 2812-022-031. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Architectural Design Review 18-010 for the review of the proposed building design, styles, and forms. 2. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 to allow for the gating of private roadways, multiple - family (multifamily) development in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, and for Cluster Development. 3. Development Review 18-009 for the review of the proposed physical design and layout of the Project. 4. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10 percent. 5. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 for the review of the proposed landscape plan. 6. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 to allow for the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees. 7. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone. 8. Tentative Tract Map 82126 to subdivide the 74.66-acre Project site into 19 lots. In addition, the residential lots, within the subdivision, would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximum of 375 residential units. Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 2 of 17 b. The Bouquet Canyon Project site is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City, on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive. The total development footprint, which includes off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. The Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones; with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multifamily dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site, that are designated as OS and PI zones, would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. c. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion of the Project site. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Rddgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. It is mapped as a floodplain and classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, none of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site. d. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses to the north, west, and south, vacant open space to the south, commercial uses (Canyon Center and Plum Commerce Center) to the southwest, and the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott to the east. There is a 2.74-acre parcel, owned by another party, developed with a single-family residence near the western site boundary, opposite Fan Court, that is not part of the Project site. e. The Project includes the development of a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units located within five distinct neighborhoods (Planning Areas) summarized as follows: Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 3 of 17 Planning Area 1 (PA-1): Single -Family Detached PA-1 is located on the western side of the Project site and is divided into two sections: north and south. The north section consists of nine units with a gated entry and cul- de-sac that provides access from existing Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Pam Court. The south section consists of 43 units with access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. A two-lane street would be located between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Two gated entries would be located at the end of the street with the west gate granting access to PA-1 and the east gate granting access to PA-2 and PA-3. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 2,447 square feet. Three model types are proposed ranging from 3 to 5 bedrooms and 3 to 5 baths, with approximately 2,307 to 2,543 square feet of living area. Planning Area IA (PA -IA): Single -Family Detached PA -IA is located on the southern side of the Project site and directly east of the Canyon Center commercial center. A gated entry and cul-de-sac are located immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial center to provide access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. PA -IA consists of 12 units. The homes would be designed similar to the homes in PA-1. Planning Area 2 (PA-2): Single -Family Detached/Eight-Pack Cluster PA-2 is located on the center of the Project site and would be accessed through a two- lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-2 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-3. PA-2 consists of 136 units. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, generally in clusters of eight units (with varying configurations), with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 1,635 square feet. Four model types are proposed ranging from 3 to 4 bedrooms and 2 to 3 baths, with approximately 1,498 to 1,801 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 3 (PA-3): Attached Backyard Towns PA-3 is located on the southern side of the Project site and would be accessed through the two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-3 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-2. PA-3 consists of 90 units. The homes would be designed as two- story, townhome structures with attached, two -car garages, in groups of three attached homes, arranged around a common driveway, and include private backyards. Model types are proposed ranging from 3 to 4 bedrooms and 3 baths, with approximately 1,606 to 1,679 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 4 (PA-4): Attached Rowtowns with Carriage Units PA-4 is located on the northern side of the Project site. Two driveways along existing Bouquet Canyon Road would provide access to PA-4. Entry gates are not proposed for PA-4. PA-4 consists of 85 units. The homes would be designed as two-story, townhome structures, with four to seven attached homes in each "row." Each home Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 4 of 17 would have its own attached, two -car garage. Four model types are proposed ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and approximately 721 to 1,521 square feet of total living area. The Project includes amenities such as a recreation center, private and public park areas, trails, and a public trailhead with a parking lot. It also includes roadway improvements and a new drainage system. The Project would require alteration of a significant ridgeline for the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element objectives. Roadway improvements include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Court, the closure of a portion of David Way for the extension of Copper Hill Drive, and removal of the bridge over Bouquet Creek in order to construct a linear park. The Project includes the construction of a new drainage channel that runs parallel to Bouquet Creek and the restoration and revegetation of the existing Bouquet Creek into a low -flow drainage channel. The Project would require approximately two -million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site. The Project would require the removal of 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees and the major encroachment of one oak tree. f. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision -making body for the Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. g. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy consumption, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. h. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), for 45 days, beginning on December 4, 2018 and ending on January 18, 2019. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project. A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on January 9, 2019, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on December 4, 2018. Six people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included traffic, noise, dust, air quality, flood and drainage, and a transparent process. Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 5of17 j. The original Project application, received on May 1, 2018, included a subdivision of 70 lots and the development of 461 residential units located in five planning areas. The architectural designs of the units included two- and three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process, the applicant decided to decrease the proposed number of units from 461 to 375 and lower the heights of the homes to two -stories. k. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was originally scheduled for April 8, 2020; however, due to COVID-19 measures, the site tour was cancelled. A memorandum, dated April 29, 2020, was sent to the Planning Commission, which included a project description, area maps, site maps, and photo simulations for review. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Bouquet Canyon Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on April 4, 2020, filed and posted on April 6, 2020, and the 60-day public review period ended on June 5, 2020, 5:00 p.m., in accordance with CEQA. Staff received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meetings for the Project. m. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on -site posting prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on the two signs posted at the Project site. n. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public meetings on the Project on June 2, 2020. The Planning Commission meetings were conducted remotely consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. These meetings were held at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The meetings were conducted via Zoom, livestreamed through the City's website, and broadcast on SCVTV Channel 20. o. On June 2, 2020, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from staff on the project setting, requested entitlements, and project description. Staff also made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy Consumption, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Wildfire, and Project Alternatives). In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant and public testimony regarding the Project. The Planning Commission provided staff direction to bring the Bouquet Canyon Project back to the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2020 meeting with the following: 1) additional information regarding various discussion topics including traffic, drainage, the proposed row- Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 6 of 17 house designs, emergency egress, recreational facilities, and bicycle parking; and 2) a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission to consider. In addition to the applicant, there were three speakers in favor of the Project and one public speaker who was opposed to the Project. There were seven written comments opposed to and nine written comments in favor of the Project submitted to the Commission at the meeting. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to the July 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. p. On July 7, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting, to the August 18, 2020 meeting, to allow for additional time for staff and the applicant to respond to the Project comments and the comments received during the EIR comment period. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over various technical aspects of the Project, as well as expressing concerns over the June 2, 2020 meeting being conducted remotely via Zoom. q. On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the public meeting to a date uncertain, per the request of the applicant, to allow for additional time to finalize Project details. One speaker provided comment on the Project expressing concerns over riparian habitat, ridgeline alteration, groundwater recharge, and traffic. r. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission received a presentation from staff on the follow up items from the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, and August 18, 2020 meetings, along with the applicant's presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval. s. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on June 2, 2020. On October 6, 2020, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project has been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. t. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, and the following: responses to written comments on the Draft EIR, responses to public testimony regarding Draft EIR issues raised at the June 2, 2020, July 7, 2020, August 18, 2020, and October 6, 2020 public meetings, and modifications to the Draft EIR text and mitigation measures. u. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), by Resolution No. P20-08. v. Based upon staff presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 7 of 17 Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the Project site. w. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based, for the Master Case 18-089 project file, with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-089. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Bouquet Canyon Project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita. The General Plan designates the Project site as UR2, UR5, and CN zones, in addition to areas within the OS and PI zones. The UR2 zone is intended for single- family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 zone provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes. Multifamily dwellings are allowable at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN zone allows multifamily dwellings with a CUP. With consideration of the average cross slope calculation, the Project site may have a maximum of approximately 944 units. However, with the physical constraints of site and the necessity of the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, the Project includes a request for a maximum of 375 units located in five planning areas. The State of California required that general plan housing elements include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the zoning and infrastructure available to serve these sites. This inventory is used to identify sites that can be feasibly developed for housing within the planning period in order to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This section of the Housing Element contains the required inventory of adequate sites for new housing that can be developed to meet the City's housing needs within the planning period. The vacant, approximately 32-acre central portion of the Project site, zoned UR5, is identified in the General Plan Housing Element as a suitable site, Housing Site 2. A UR5 designation allows 18 to 30 units per acre. In general, this classification, along with the density bonus allowances, would allow for up to 1,360 units. However, based on the site's topography, floodway, and other constraints, an estimated 300 units may be reasonably accommodated on Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 8 of 17 the property. This central portion, in addition to other areas of the Project site, would accommodate the development of 375 residential units, amenities, and necessary drainage systems to be consistent with the General Plan, specifically, Mixed Land Uses Goal LU 2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, supported by adequate resources and maintaining community assets. In addition, the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, extension of Copper Hill Drive, and other roadway improvements, is consistent with the Circulation Element. b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions ofthis code; The Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Hillside Development Review, Landscape Plan Review, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, and Tentative Tract Map in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). With the granting of these entitlements, the Project, with its mix of units, recreation area, trails, density, and parking, would be allowed within the applicable underlying zones and compliant with all other application provisions of the UDC. c. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; The Project has been evaluated in accordance with the UDC and the General Plan. The Project has been designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Projectwill not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity. The Project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and is in keeping with the development in the vicinity. The proposal was fully evaluated by regulatory agencies through the development review process to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. The Project was also subject to a public hearing process in which interested citizens in the vicinity voiced their opinions before the Planning Commission. Through the application of the Conditions of Approval, the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and will not be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Furthermore, the Project would complete the Bouquet Canyon Road, Copper Hill Drive, and other circulation improvements. d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The Project has been designed to be consistent with the UDC, including the required Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 9 of 17 provisions for hillside development, cluster development, and residential code requirements. The Project site consists of residential development primarily within the UR2, UR5, and CN zones, and trailhead, park areas, and road improvements located within the OS and PI zones. The zones have identical corresponding General Plan designations. The Projectwas designed under the constraints of a ridgeline and floodplain and the necessity of constructing a realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The Project utilized the topography of the Project site to concentrate uses on the flat areas, where possible, utilized cluster development within five planning areas, and altering a portion of the ridgeline for the road realignment. The new segments of Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive are developed within the remaining portions of the site. With the Conditions of Approval, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project included a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the improvements required for the Project. The Project includes the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and the connection of Copper Hill Drive to the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The traffic analysis identified multiple areas of roadway improvement requirements to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The applicant is required to construct improvements at the following intersections: David Way and existing segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive, and the eastern location of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and the existing segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. In addition, the applicant is required pay the Project's fair share contribution to a collective set of improvements around the Project site that would alter and improve traffic flow within the immediate area of the Project site, which includes Benz Road, Copper Hill Drive, Kathleen Avenue, David Way, and Bouquet Canyon Road, among others. The completion of the roadway improvements would ensure the Project will have the necessary traffic infrastructure to service the site and uses in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project will have access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, the existing Bouquet Canyon Road, and the Copper Hill Drive. The Project is conditioned to require the completion of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, subject to the infrastructure phasing plan, to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and construction timing as approved by the City Engineer. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment, that is serviced by existing Sheriff and fire protection services. The applicant will pay applicable fees to the Sheriff and Fire Departments to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. No new or expanded Los Angeles County Sheriff's Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 10 of 17 Department or Los Angeles County Fire Station facilities would be required to provide public safety and law enforcement services to the Project site. In addition, a detailed wildfire access and emergency analysis was completed and found the Project is designed accordingly to provide safe access. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The Project is in a portion of the City that is developed with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. Santa Clarita Valley Water would have sufficientwater supplies to meet the Project's water demand. The payment of mandatory development impact fees to each affected school district would sufficiently mitigate the Project's impacts. A sewer area study was conducted for the Project. Los Angeles County Sanitation District would have sufficient wastewater capacity to convey and treat the flows generated by the fully developed Project. The stormwater drainage facilities developed on -site are designed to hold a greater capacity and infiltration than the water quality volume required by the County of Los Angeles Public Works. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: a. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. The Project includes the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, which includes the connection and continuation of the City's Class II Bike Lane, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, an interconnected public walking trail network is to be constructed within the interior and along the perimeter of the Project site to integrate the site with the City's existing trail system. A trailhead with a public parking lot and park areas within the eastern portion of the Project site would allow access to the on -site trail network. As part of the Project, three new bus stops will be constructed for the City to integrate the site with the City's existing transit system. The onsite roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for the future residents, as well as any law enforcement and emergency services. Therefore, the Bouquet Canyon Project will not obstruct any public access with the subdivision of the site. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 11 of 17 entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; The grading plan would involve an estimated cut of 2,069,664 cubic yards and a fill of 2,052,237 cubic yards. The total development footprint, including off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. All earthwork would be balanced on site with the difference between cut and fill due to shrinkage upon compaction. No import or export of earth will be required. The Project includes grading within the Rddgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone and the alteration of a portion of the ridgeline to build the General Plan -designated roadway. The Project site contains hillsides in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides, utilize appropriate contour grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading, and will comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC. c. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood; The requested entitlements include a CUP to allow for Cluster Development subject to the requirements of the UDC. This would allow for a concentration of residential units and reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Over three acres of land is dedicated for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and over eight acres of land is dedicated for a drainage channel and Bouquet Creek restoration area. The Project's density is calculated on a project - level rather than a parcel -by -parcel basis, and would allow the development of smaller lots than are customarily permitted in the zones, which would retain or preserve the remaining areas as permanent open space, as in the case of the ridgeline and creek. The north section of PA-1 and the entirety of PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4 are all located in relatively flat areas of the Project site. d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; The Project complies with the applicable setback requirements of the UDC. To ensure construction of each planning area is compliant with the provisions of the UDC, a Condition Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 12 of 17 of Approval (attached as Exhibit A) has been incorporated into the Project requiring the approval of a Development Review application by the Director of Community Development. e. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; The Project includes the grading of the Project site to accommodate the development of the residential uses and roadway improvements. The new slopes will use landform and contour grading techniques to further blend into the existing slopes on the Project site. Planting of the graded slopes will be consistent with the City's landscape ordinance which requires standards relating to the quality, quantity, and functional aspects of landscaping and landscape screening. In addition, the Project shall be compliant with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit for development within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation, and plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita Valley. Furthermore, a condition has been added to the Project that requires a disclosure of the planting requirements in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, varying in size, species, and health. No heritage oak trees were identified on the Project site. As part of the Project, 15 non -heritage -sized oak trees would be removed and would either replaced on -site or required to pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Oak Tree Fund as required by the UDC. The remaining 49 oak trees would be saved. Therefore, planting the graded slopes will be conducted in a manner consistent with the City's landscape, hillside, and oak tree ordinances, as well as the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. f. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; One of the Project Objectives listed in the Project's EIR states to "minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment." In order to facilitate the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, an alteration of a portion of the significant ridgeline is required. The City's design criteria for arterial roadways limit both the steepness and curve radii of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. As a result, there is a cut depth of over 100 feet required in order to construct the alignment. The combination of depth of cut, width of the roadway (four lanes plus parkways), and 2:1 slopes adjacent to the roadway would result in an major alteration to the existing ridgeline. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscape and soften views to the public. The east side of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road (adjacent to the south section of PA-1) and the south side of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. The clustering of units would further minimize impacts. Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 13 of 17 g. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and h. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. The Project includes development on a ridgeline identified as a Significant Rddgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. A portion of the designated ridgeline on the west side of the Project site would be graded in order to build a General Plan -identified alignment for Bouquet Canyon Road. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter a portion of the ridgeline and the ridgeline is not the most substantial ridgeline in the community. Based on the evaluations of existing conditions, including the fact that the ridgeline on the Project site is not a character -defining feature of the Saugus community, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: a. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; b. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site, as the residential use would be appropriate in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community as is evidenced by the surrounding residential developments. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Saugus community. No new homes or other structures would exceed two stories or 35 feet in height and the built -environment of all proposed planning areas would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of building massing and maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for travelers along Bouquet Canyon Road. Mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and compliance with all local codes ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 14 of 17 c. The establishment ofthe proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area; Implementation of the Project would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not violate the visual integrity of the ridgeline as the ridgeline on the Project site is indistinguishable from other hills in the surrounding area and the Project would not restrict and views of other ridgelines located off the Project site. d. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents ofnot only the proposed use or development, but the residents ofthe City as a whole; One of the Project Objectives listed in the Proj ect's EIR states to "construct site improvements that achieve a desirable community character which will be compatible with, and enhance the residential character of, surrounding neighborhoods." The Project was designed under the constraints of a ridgeline and floodplain and the necessity of constructing a realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The Project utilized the cluster development provisions of the UDC for the concentration of residential units primarily on the flat areas and the reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Through the review process, the proposed number of units of the Project was reduced from 461 units to 375 units and lowered the heights of the homes from two- and three-story homes to only two-story homes in all five planning areas, thereby lowering the potential visual impacts. The General Plan Circulation Element was developed based on analysis of existing conditions in the Santa Clarita Valley, future development in both City and County areas, and anticipated growth. Roadway infrastructure improvements are made as growth occurs in the Santa Clarita Valley and needs are assessed continually by the City. The Project includes the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, as designated in the Circulation Element as a secondary highway, which is designed to service both through traffic, and to collect traffic from collector and local streets. As conditioned, the Project is required to build the roadway prior to the occupancy of any units. Furthermore, the Project includes other features that would provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of both the development and City, as a whole, including bus stops, public trailhead, trail network, park areas, and amenities. e. The use or development minimizes the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; f. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and One of the Project Objectives listed in the Project's EIR states to "minimize grading of a significant ridgeline, while providing the necessary amount of grading to construct the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road in the preferred alignment." A portion of the designated Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 15 of 17 ridgeline on the west side of the Project site would be graded in order to build the General Plan -identified alignment for Bouquet Canyon Road. The northern portion of the ridgeline would be preserved in its current form and the middle portion of the ridgeline would be modified to accommodate for a trail and park area, thereby preserving the northern portion of the ridgeline. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The east side of the existing Bouquet Canyon Road and the south side of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. g. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. By incorporating Cluster Development, this allows for a concentration of residential units and reductions to development standards in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. There are no public scenic overlooks, on or adjacent to, the Project site; however, the steep terrain on the Project site could make the site part of a scenic vista when viewed from a distant location. There are other General Plan -designated, significant ridgelines in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, all of which are taller than the significant ridgeline on the Project site. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element, because the Project would only alter a portion of the ridgeline, and because the ridgeline on the Project site is not the most substantial ridgeline in the community. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Bouquet Canyon Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: a. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: i. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; ii. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; iii. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 16 of 17 iv. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 64 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 15 non -heritage sized oak trees and the encroachment of four oak trees, thereby saving 49 oak trees. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss the removed of oak trees. If planting on site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. In addition, the Project site contains two Blue Oaks that are uncommon and rare in the community. Therefore, the Project will include Conditions of Approval to provide additional justification, which includes grading plan details, cross - sections, reappraisals, and a transplant study, prior to any proposed removal to be reviewed and approved by the City. The compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. b. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. No heritage oak trees were identified on the Project site. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Master Case 18-089; Architectural Design Review 18-010; Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126 for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 8. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Resolution P20-09 Master Case 18-089: Bouquet Canyon Project October 6, 2020 Page 17 of 17 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2020. PHILIP HART, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6 h of October, 2020, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY JC:PL:rc S:ACDV!PLANNING DIVISIOMCURRLNP!2018\MC18-089 (Bouquet Canyon Realignment Project)A7. Planning Commission\6. PC Hearing — October 6, 2020\MC18-089 Project Resolution P20-09.docx O Agenda Item: 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 0PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: June 2, 2020 SUBJECT: BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT (MASTER CASE 18-089) APPLICANT: Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC LOCATION: East of Bouquet Canyon Road, South of Copper Hill Drive CASE PLANNER: Hai Nguyen RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff s presentation on the Project and Draft Environmental Impact Report, open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public, close the public hearing, and provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and Project issues, and continue the public hearing to July 7, 2020. REQUEST The applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Hillside Development Review, Landscape Plan Review, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, and Tentative Tract Map to allow for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements on approximately 74.66 acres of undeveloped land. The Project would also include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Court, and construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Circulation Element objectives. The Project would require approximately 2 million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site, channelization of part of the floodplain through the site, removal or encroachment of 27 non -heritage -sized oak trees, and alteration of a significant ridgeline. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Page 1 Packet Pg. 273 O The intent of this meeting is to open the public hearing, provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the Project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and establish a tentative meeting schedule for the Project. Copies of the DEIR were provided to the Planning Commission for review during the 60-day public review and comment period between April 6, 2020 to June 5, 2020. Staff is proposing the following dates for the Project: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 Tuesday, July 7, 2020 August 2020 to September 2020 BACKGROUND Project introduction, summary of DEIR, public comments Response to Planning Commission and public comments and recommendation to City Council City Council Public Hearing BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT APPLICATION On May 1, 2018, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC submitted an application to allow for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project. The original application included a subdivision of 70 lots and the development of 461 residential units located in five planning areas. The architectural designs of the units included two- and three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding residents and comments from staff s initial review, the applicant decided to decrease the proposed number of units from 461 to 375 and lower the heights of the homes to two -stories, as described in the Project Description section of this report. PROJECT ,SETTING The Project is located in the developed community of Saugus along the northern edge of the City of Santa Clarita, on the eastside of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive. The Project site consists of undeveloped land, covered by a mixture of natural and altered landscapes, prominent hills in the western side, and a stream course known as Bouquet Creek flowing from east to west in the northern part of the site. The total development footprint, which includes off - site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. The site consists of seven parcels: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2812-008-003, 2812-008-013, 2812-008-021, 2812-008-022, 2812- 008-031, 2812-008-900, and 2812-038-002. There is a 2.74-acre parcel, owned by another party, developed with a single-family residence near the western site boundary, opposite Fan Court, that is not part of the project site. The Project includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road along the eastern portion of the Project site, to follow the general alignment identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. Bouquet Canyon Road is designated as a Major Highway south of Plum Canyon Road and a Secondary Highway north of Plum Canyon Road on the City's General Plan Circulation Map. The segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, that is south of Plum Canyon Road, is four lanes and narrows to two lanes as it loops around the Project site, north of Plum Canyon Page 2 Packet Pg. 274 O Road. Steep slopes and a prominent ridgeline define the site topography in the western portion of the Project site, while lower, relatively flat land is found in the eastern portion of the Project site. The ridgeline area is identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the General Plan Conservation Element. Total relief across the site is 165 feet, with a high elevation of 1,530 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the ridgeline and a low elevation of 1,365 feet AMSL in a flat area along Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Benz Road on the western portion of the Project site. Elevations in the eastern interior area and in the creek floodplain range between 1,390 and 1,400 feet AMSL. Bouquet Creek is an ephemeral stream that flows east to west through the northern edge of the site. The entire reach of Bouquet Creek through the site has been mapped as a floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the main drainage course classified as a 100-year flood hazard zone. The Bouquet Creek streambed enters the Project area at the northeastern boundary and exits at the northwestern boundary. The drainage continues under the existing Bouquet Canyon Road at the northwestern corner of the study area boundary, where the drainage has been channelized. The Bouquet Canyon drainage is a tributary to the Santa Clara River. COMMUNITY O UTREACH BY THE APPLICANT Upon formal submittal of the Project, City staff encouraged the applicant to begin meeting with the surrounding neighborhoods and community stakeholders. On December 3, 2018, the applicant sent letters to 138 residents within the vicinity of the Project site and posted on the Nextdoor website. The applicant conducted a public outreach meeting on December 19, 2018. Approximately 25 residents were in attendance. Some of the concerns identified during this meeting were in regards to: privacy, traffic patterns, new homes looking down on the existing homes, power lines undergrounded. The applicant intended to host subsequent public outreach meetings within the community; however; due to COVID-19 measures, the outreach strategy had to change from in person public meetings to individual outreach. The applicant has instead mailed out notices on May 22, 2020 and has offered to speak directly with residents at their convenience. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING, SURROUNDING LAND USE Land use on the Project site is governed by the City's General Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC). In the General Plan Land Use Element, the Project site is designated primarily of the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), Urban Residential 5 (UR5), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zones, in addition to areas within the Open Space (OS) and Public/Institution (PI) zones; with identical corresponding zone district classifications. The UR2 land use designation is intended for neighborhoods or communities of single-family homes and other residential uses at a maximum density of five dwelling units per one acre. The UR5 land use designation provides for medium- to high -density apartment and condominium complexes in areas easily accessible to transportation, employment, retail, and other urban services. Allowable uses in this designation include multiple -family (multifamily) dwellings at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per one acre and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per one acre. The CN land use designation provides for small neighborhood commercial districts that serve the short-term needs of residents Page 3 Packet Pg. 275 O in the immediate area. Multifamily dwellings may be permitted in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The areas on the Project site that are designated as OS and PI zones would be primarily used for the construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Project site is listed as a Suitable Site (Housing Site 2) in the Housing Element of the General Plan. A Suitable Site is a site that may be feasibly developed for housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The site is listed as suitable for very low and low- income units. The following table provides a summary of the immediate surrounding areas of the Project site: Su mary of Surrounding Area General Plan Zone Land Use Project Site UR2, UR5, CN, UR2, UR5, CN, Proposed 375 residential units in OS, and PI OS, and PI five Planning Areas North UR2, UR5, and UR2, UR5, and Single-family homes and OS OS Bouquet Creek South UR2 and OS UR2 and OS Vacant open space East UR2 and PI UR2 and PI Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott and single-family homes West UR2, OS, and CN UR2, OS, and CN Canyon Center, neighborhood commercial center and single- family homes The Project site is located in an area where numerous neighborhoods of single-family homes have been developed, to the north, west, and south. Scattered homes and equestrian facilities are found north and northeast, in a rural setting. The Los Angeles County Probation Department Camp Joseph Scott occupies a large site immediately to the east. Undeveloped slopes separate the Project site from single-family neighborhoods to the south. There is a triangular -shaped neighborhood commercial center (Canyon Center) just to the south, along the east side of Bouquet Canyon Road. There is another commercial center farther south, at the corner of Bouquet Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road (Plum Commerce Center). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the development of a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units located within five distinct neighborhoods (Planning Areas). The residential community includes four entry gates, related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements on approximately 74.66 acres of undeveloped land. The Project includes roadway improvements and a new drainage system. The Project would require alteration of a significant ridgeline for the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element objectives. Roadway improvements also include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Page 4 Packet Pg. 276 O Court and Hob Court, the closure of a portion of David Way for the extension of Copper Hill Drive, and removal of the bridge over Bouquet Creek in order to construct a linear park. The Project includes the construction of a new drainage channel that runs parallel to Bouquet Creek and the restoration and revegetation of the existing Bouquet Creek into a low -flow drainage channel. The Project would require approximately 2 million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site. The Project would require the removal of 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees and the major encroachment of one oak tree. PLANNING AREA ,SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a private, on -site vehicle circulation network to provide access to homes within each planning area. The Planning Areas are summarized as follows: Summary of Planning Areas Planning Area Building Square Feet Units Type PA-1 127,381 52 Single -Family Detached PA -IA 29,368 12 Single -Family Detached PA-2 221,148 136 Single -Family Detached/Eight-Pack Cluster PA-3 148,050 90 Attached Backyard Towns PA-4 122,540 85 Attached Rowtowns Total: 648,487 SF 375 units Planning Area 1 (PA-1): Single -Family Detached PA-1 is located on the western side of the Project site and is divided into two sections. The northerly section consists of nine units with a proposed gated entry and cul-de-sac that provides access from existing Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Pam Court. The southerly section consists of 43 units with access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. A proposed two-lane street would be located between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Two gated entries would be located at the end of the street with the west gate granting access to PA-1 and the east gate granting access to PA-2 and PA-3. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 2,447 square feet. Three plans are proposed with 3 to 5 bedrooms and 3 to 5 baths, with approximately 2,307 to 2,543 square feet of living area. Planning Area IA (PA -I& Single -Family Detached PA -IA is located on the southern side of the Project site and directly east of the Canyon Center commercial center. A proposed gated entry and cul-de-sac are located immediately north of the northern end of the Canyon Center commercial center to provide access from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. PA -IA consists of 12 units. The homes would be designed similar to the homes in PA-1. Planning Area 2 (PA-2): Single -Family Detached/Eight-Pack Cluster PA-2 is located on the center of the Project site and would be accessed through the proposed two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-2 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-3. Page 5 Packet Pg. 277 O PA-2 consists of 136 units. The homes would be designed as two-story structures, generally in clusters of eight units (with varying configurations), with attached, two -car garages on lot sizes averaging 1,635 square feet. Four plans are proposed, with 3 to 4 bedrooms and 2 to 3 baths, with approximately 1,498 to 1,801 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 3 (PA-3): Attached Backyard Towns PA-3 is located on the southern side of the Project site and would be accessed through the proposed two-lane street shared between PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Access to PA-3 would be through a gated entry, which is also shared with PA-2. PA-3 consists of 90 units. The homes would be designed as two-story, townhome structures with attached, two -car garages, in groups of three attached homes, arranged around a common driveway, and including private backyards. Three plans are proposed, with 3 to 4 bedrooms and 3 baths, with approximately 1,606 to 1,679 square feet of total living area. Planning Area 4 (PA-4): Attached Rowtowns with Carriage Units PA-4 is located on the northern side of the Project site. Two driveways along existing Bouquet Canyon Road would provide access to PA-4. Entry gates are not proposed for PA-4. PA-4 consists of 85 units. The homes would be designed as two-story, townhome structures, with four to seven attached homes in each "row." Each home would have its own attached, two -car garage. Four plans are proposed, with 1 to 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths and approximately 721 to 1,521 square feet of total living area. ADDITIONAL PROJECT COMPONENTS Parking The Project includes a total of 987 parking spaces: 750 resident garage spaces (two spaces per unit), 208 guest parking spaces located throughout each Planning Area, and 29 trailhead parking spaces. Of the 237 guest and trailhead parking spaces, 208 are standard spaces, 10 are accessible, and 19 are fuel -efficient, low -emitting, carpool/vanpool. The Project includes 63 bicycle parking spaces that would be designed as bike racks located on or near the park areas. As proposed, the Project exceeds meets the parking requirements established in Chapter 17.42 of the UDC. Outdoor Amenities A variety of private and public amenities are included in the Project. A landscaping program is proposed, including community open spaces, street trees and parkways, recreational turf areas, native and manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, creek riparian enhancements, stormwater management and private yards. The amenities are summarized as follows: • Recreation center and private park areas: One private recreation center in PA-1 with a recreation building, in -ground swimming pool and spa, outdoor deck, barbeques, shade structure, spaces for social gatherings, and restrooms/changing areas. Two private, open turf/play areas are also proposed as outdoor amenities within PA-2. Public parks: A linear public park that includes turf areas, ornamental landscape elements, a tot lot, and seating areas, is proposed within the segment of Bouquet Canyon Road that is to be closed, between Hob Court and Pam Court, and the closed portion of David Way (south of Copper Hill Drive) in the northwest portion of the Project site. The Page 6 Packet Pg. 278 O proposed trail would lead up to another public park that includes benches, trash receptacles, and a shade structure located on the top of the knoll. There are an additional two public parks areas along the trail within PA-4. • Trails: An interconnected public walking trail network is proposed around the Project site perimeter, behind (south edge of) Planning Area 4, through Planning Area 1, and around and up to the top of the hill formation in the western part of the site. The trail network would provide views of the open space along the drainage zone of Bouquet Creek and walking access along and to the park area on the knolltop. The proposed trail network would also connect to the Proposed Class I trail along Alaminos Drive, through Hob Court, and into the proposed linear park and to the County Trail System on the east side of the Project site. • Trailhead: A public parking lot with 29 parking spaces and adjacent open turf areas is proposed along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, between the east edge of Planning Area 3 and the eastern end of the new drainage channel, near the northeast corner of the site. This trailhead would grant public access to the on -site public trail network. Gating The Project includes a total of four entry gates: • Two gated entries would be located at the end of the proposed two-lane street, that provides shared access to PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3, along the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. The west gate grants access to PA-1 and the east gate grants access to PA- 2 and PA-3. • One gated entry would be located at the entrance in the northern part of PA-1 from existing Bouquet Canyon Road, opposite Pam Court. • One gate entry would be located at the entrance of PA -IA from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Oak Trees The Project site contains a total of 64 oak trees, varying in size, species, and health according to the Oak Tree Survey conducted in December 2018. No heritage oak trees were identified on the Project site. As part of the Project, 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees would be removed and would either replaced on -site or required to pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Oak Tree Fund as required by the UDC. The remaining 38 oak trees would be saved (one oak tree with major encroachment and 37 oak trees with minor encroachments or avoided completely). GRADING AND INFRASTRUCTURE Grading The grading plan would involve an estimated excavation (cut) of 2,069,664 cubic yards and an embankment (fill) of 2,052,237 cubic yards. The total development footprint, including off -site grading, would cover approximately 74.66 acres. All earthwork would be balanced on site. No import or export of earth will be required as proposed. As proposed, the Project includes grading within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone. The ridgeline, located east of existing Bouquet Canyon Road, runs from the northwest quadrant of the property in a southerly Page 7 Packet Pg. 279 O direction to the southwest quadrant of the property and continues beyond the Project site to the south. The City's design criteria for arterial roadways limit both the steepness and curve radii of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. As a result, there is a cut depth of over 100 feet required in order to construct the alignment. The combination of depth of cut, width of the roadway (four lanes plus parkways), and 2:1 slopes adjacent to the roadway would result in an major alteration to the existing ridgeline and therefore, an approval by City Council is required. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscape and soften views to the public. Additional grading would create building pads for units within PA-1. Grading would comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC and blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. Bouquet Canyon Road Realignment and Roadway Improvements The portion of Bouquet Canyon Road that runs along the Project site is classified as a Secondary Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed realignment would be constructed as a four -lane roadway for a road segment from approximately 1,500 feet north of Plum Canyon Road, just past the Plum Commerce Center, to approximately 700 feet south of Shadow Valley Lane in accordance with the Circulation Element objectives for this major travel route. The new road segment would include Class II Bike Lanes and parkways on both sides. A portion of existing Bouquet Canyon Road would be abandoned, between Hob Court and Pam Court. This would require the removal of the existing bridge over Bouquet Creek. The vacation of segments of David Way and Bouquet Canyon Road and the extension of Copper Hill Drive would allow for additional park area at the former intersection. Other intersections and improvements are summarized as follows: • David Way and Existing Bouquet Canyon East Realignment: Remove existing traffic signal. Close the southern portion of David Way (between existing Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive). Construct a new east leg at David Way at Copper Hill Drive intersection and connect to existing Bouquet Canyon Road. • Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive: Construct median island to restrict left -turn movement (northbound left) from Benz Road to Copper Hill Drive. • New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing Bouquet Canyon East: Installation of a traffic signal. In addition, the Project would be responsible for its fair -share of the cost of the improvements in the immediate area at the following locations: • Bouquet Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road • New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing Bouquet Canyon Road West • Kathleen Avenue and Copper Hill Drive • Golden Valley Road and Plum Canyon Road • Seco Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road • Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road • Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road • New Bouquet Canyon Road and Existing Bouquet Canyon Road East (Copper Hill Drive) Page 8 Packet Pg. 280 O Bouquet Creek Bouquet Creek flows east to west through the northern edge of the Project site between PA-2 and PA-4. Construction of a new drainage channel is proposed to run parallel to Bouquet Creek, designed to contain 100-year and other higher intensity storm flows. This channel would be constructed as a trapezoidal -shaped, with reinforced concrete embankments, and a soft bottom. Access roads would be built along both sides to facilitate regular and emergency maintenance operations. In addition, Bouquet Creek would be restored and revegetated in the form of a low - flow drainage channel. This channel will be 30 feet wide and will run parallel to the main flow channel. ENTITLEMENT AND ANALYSIS ,SUMMARY Architectural Design Review 18-010 An Architectural Design Review (ADR) is required for the proposed building design, styles, and forms to ensure that the proposed architecture complies with all of the provisions of the Section 17.51.020 of the UDC and the General Plan and to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. Additional ADRs, would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the product complies and is consistent with the proposed architecture of the Project. Conditional Use Permit 18-004 A Condition Use Permit (CUP) is required for: gating of private roadways, multifamily development in the CN zone, and to allow for Cluster Development. In accordance with Section 17.66.050 of the UDC, gating of private roadways serving more than five single-family units or more than 15 multifamily units requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and subject to the residential gating standards. A CUP is required to allow for a multifamily development in the CN zone and subject to the Section 17.57.030 Multifamily Development Standards of the UDC. A CUP is also required for the cluster development of the Project and subject to the requirements established in Section 17.68.020 Cluster Developments. This would allow for a concentration of residential units and reductions in minimum lot size in order to preserve the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek to the fullest extent feasible. Over three acres of land is dedicated for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and over eight acres of land is dedicated for a drainage channel and creek restoration area. The Project's density would be calculated on a project level rather than a parcel -by -parcel basis, and would allow the development of smaller lots than are customarily permitted in the zone, which would retain or preserve the remaining areas as permanent open space, as in the case of the ridgeline and creek. Development Review 18-009 A Development Review (DR) is required for the proposed physical design and layout prior to the issuance of any building permit for subdivision developments or multifamily developments in accordance with Chapter 17.57 of the UDC. Additional DRs, would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the product complies and is consistent with the proposed site development of the Project. Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001 A Hillside Development Review is required for all development on slopes in excess of 10 Page 9 Packet Pg. 281 O percent average cross -slope or greater with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC. As described in the above Grading section, the Project's grading would comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC and blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. In addition, cluster development is requested in order to reduce grading alterations of the terrain. Landscape Plan Review 19-017 A Landscape Plan Review (LPR) is required for the installation of new landscaping. Preliminary landscape plans have been submitted with this Project. Additional LPRs, would be required with the submittal of each PA to ensure that the landscaping complies with all of the provisions of Section 17.51.030 of the UDC and the General Plan and other applicable requirements. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003 An Oak Tree Permit is required for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.51.040 Oak Tree Preservation of the UDC. The Project includes the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001 A Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) is required to protect and/or restrict development on identified significant ridgelines with an approval by the City Council in accordance to Section 17.38.070 of the UDC. RP overlay zones establish 100-foot zones either horizontally, or vertically, on either side of an identified ridgeline. To minimize the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved, only a portion of the ridgeline would be altered and natural topographic features would be conserved by means of landform grading which would blend any manufactures slopes into the natural topography. The alteration would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the community and be consistent with General Plan. Furthermore, development within the RP overlay zone is primarily for the construction of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road as part of the master planned highways as indicated in the General Plan. Tentative Tract Man 82126 A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is required for the subdivision of more than four lots in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and Section 17.25.110 of the UDC. The Project includes a request to subdivide the Project site into 19 lots for residential land uses, streets, private drives, drainage infrastructure, slopes, and various open space lots. The Project's residential land use mix and densities represent a combination of the UR2, UR5, and CN land use standards. The design of the subdivision and improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Project is located in an existing developed area of the City. The Project would not obstruct any public access. Further, the Project would provide improved public access in the form a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in accordance with the City's Circulation Element, and various roadway and infrastructure improvements. The Project is consistent with the General Plan land use policies and zoning standards. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Page 10 Packet Pg. 282 O After Project submittal, staff determined that an EIR would be required for this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequently, the City sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an environmental consulting firm to prepare an EIR. After interviewing several firms, Michael Baker International, Inc. was awarded the contract on August 28, 2018. On November 29, 2018, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Bouquet Canyon Project EIR with a 45-day comment period that closed on January 18, 2019. Seven agencies have submitted written comments. A Scoping Meeting was held on January 9, 2019 with six people in attendance. Topics of concern include traffic, noise, dust, air quality, flood and drainage, and transparent process. A DEIR has been completed and circulated for public review for 60 days beginning on April 6, 2020, and ending on June 5, 2020. A presentation of the DEIR has been scheduled for the June 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to allow for the public to provide comment. The DEIR is available for review by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, City Clerk's Office, and is also available on the Planning Division webpage at the following web address: btt .// w. s . nt ....ci . it ..� gin/ i . nnin , ironmental ...........................gmm ,SUMMARY OF THE BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT DEIR The Bouquet Canyon Project DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and identifies issues for which there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and reasonable measures to mitigate the potential impacts. Section 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis of the DEIR includes analyzes of the impacts to each area and summarized in the below section: • 3.1 Aesthetics • 3.2 Air Quality • 3.3 Biological Resources • 3.4 Cultural Resources • 3.5 Energy Consumption • 3.6 Geology and Soils • 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality • 3.10 Noise • 3.11 Public Services • 3.12 Transportation/Traffic • 3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources • 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems • 3.15 Wildfire MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures have been applied to reduce potential significant environmental impacts from the Project and are summarized in the Executive Summary of the DEIR. If a potentially Page 11 Packet Pg. 283 O significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The results of the analyses presented in the DEIR have indicated all mitigation measures would fully mitigate the potential impacts and the Project would not result in any significant, unavoidable impacts. The applicant has agreed to implement all proposed mitigation measures. PROJECT ALTERNATJVES Section 5.0 Alternatives of the DEIR contains a discussion of the following three alternatives to the Project: 1. No Project/No Development 2. Reduced Grading 3. Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections are summaries of the analysis in the Project DEIR. For a full discussion of each of the issues analyzed below and all the conclusions reached, refer to the individual discussions in Section 3.0 of the DEIR. 3.1 Aesthetics The Aesthetics section (beginning on page 3.1-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential aesthetics, light, and glare impacts that may result from the Project. Site photographs and visual simulations depicting the existing conditions and the proposed five-year and 10-year views were included in the DEIR in Figures 3.1-1 to 3.1-17. ,Scenic Vistas, Ridgeline, and Oak Tree Impacts The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is further not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. The Project includes development on a ridgeline, identified as a Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. A portion of the designated ridgeline on the west side of the Project site would be graded in order to build a General Plan -identified alignment for Bouquet Canyon Road. While grading would occur on this ridgeline, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter a portion of the ridgeline and the ridgeline is not the most substantial ridgeline in the community. Based on the evaluations of existing conditions, including the fact that the ridgeline on the Project site is not a character -defining feature of the Saugus community, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Further, the applicant would be required to replace the 26 oak trees to be removed by the Project with 91 oak trees (or the equivalent monetary value) pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Preservation standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. Lighting Impacts Compliance with the City's existing outdoor lighting restrictions would prevent off -site light spillage and glare and would ensure that the Project's lighting sources would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no Page 12 Packet Pg. 284 O mitigation. Design Impacts The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the Saugus community. No new homes or other structures would exceed two stories/35 feet in height and the built -environment of all proposed planning areas would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Further, the Project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of building massing and maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for travelers along Bouquet Canyon Road. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. 3.2 Air Quality The Air Quality section (beginning on page 3.2-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) has established significance thresholds to assess the impact of Project related air pollutant emissions: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PMio), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). CalEEMod was utilized to model construction emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PMio, and PM2.5. Unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with the exception of NOx. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.2-1, which would require Tier 4-certified off -road construction equipment during Project construction, and mitigation measure MM 3.2-2, which would further reduce construction emissions by restricting hauling vehicles to no larger than Medium Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) during the site preparation and grading phases, would reduce construction exhaust NOx emissions to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the Project's operational emissions would not exceed regional thresholds of significance and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors. 3.3 Biological Resources The Biological Resources section (beginning on page 3.3-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts on plant and animal resources that could result from the Project. Biological resource impacts are addressed in terms of potential effects that could result from Project construction and long-term operation on endangered and protected species; wetland, riparian, and other sensitive habitat; the movement of native or migratory fish and wildlife; and jurisdictional waters defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Plant and Wildlife Impacts The Project would remove habitat that supports a rare plant species (slender mariposa lilies) and a sensitive animal species (burrowing owl). However, with implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.3-1 and MM 3.3-2, the Project would have a less than significant adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified locally or regionally, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Page 13 Packet Pg. 285 O The Project would result in permanent impacts to 28.68 acres of native plant -dominated habitat and 55.55 acres of habitat dominated by non-native species and previously disturbed areas. The elderberry savanna and southern willow scrub/giant reed stand habitats on the Project site are considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW and would be permanently impacted by the Project. However, both habitats are considered low quality due to their size and the presence of invasive species. Although southern willow scrub/giant reed stand is considered low -quality habitat, the Project would offset permanent impacts to 0.70 acres through compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional streambed impacts as outlined in mitigation measure MM 3.3-3. Therefore, with the appropriate mitigation measures, the Project would have a less than significant adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or the USFWS. Wetlands The Project would result in 0.19 acres of permanent impacts and 0.46 acres of temporary impacts to non -wetland waters of the United States. Permanent impacts would be concentrated on the western and eastern ends of Bouquet Creek within the Project footprint. The remaining portion of Bouquet Creek would be temporarily impacted by the construction of a new flood control channel south of the natural Bouquet Creek channel on the project site. Compensatory mitigation is required for permanent impacts as part of the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permits. As such, with mitigation measure MM 3.3-4 incorporated, the Project would have a less than significant adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. Wildlife Movement The Project would result in temporary impacts on the movement of terrestrial and avian wildlife through the Project site during construction; however, impacts from activities such as construction and fuel modification would be temporary. Bouquet Creek does provide a migratory fish corridor given existing barriers to wildlife movement upstream and downstream of the Project site and the ephemeral nature of the creek. Because the majority of the stream would be recontoured to pre -project conditions following construction and because the Project site would not permanently disrupt wildlife movement in the area, impacts on wildlife movement would be less than significant without mitigation. However, the Project may disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests and young protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, avoidance and minimization measures, as outlined in mitigation measure MM 3.3-5, would be required to reduce impacts on migratory birds to less than significant. The Project site is not part of a regional wildlife movement corridor, does not serve as a wildlife nursery site, and is not identified as being part of a local or regional corridor or linkage by the South Coast Missing Linkages report (South Coast Wildlands 2008). Some reptiles, small mammals, and occasionally larger mammals may access the Project site from undeveloped land to the east via Bouquet Creek or the ridgeline to the south of the Camp Joseph Scott facility. Therefore, the Project area provides habitat for local wildlife movement, but does not serve as a regional wildlife corridor. Habitat and Wetlands The Project would result in 0.19 acres of permanent impacts and 0.46 acres of temporary impacts Page 14 Packet Pg. 286 O to non -wetland waters of the United States. Permanent impacts would be concentrated on the western and eastern ends of Bouquet Creek within the Project footprint. The remaining portion of Bouquet Creek would be temporarily impacted by the construction of a new flood control channel south of the natural Bouquet Creek channel on the Project site. Compensatory mitigation is required for permanent impacts as part of the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permits through the Army Corps of Engineers. As such, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would have a less than significant adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. Oak Trees The Project site contains 64 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of 26 non -heritage sized oak trees, the major encroachment of one oak tree, and the minor encroachment of two oak trees, and preservation of the remaining 35 oak trees. The City would require approximately 91 replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss the removed of oak trees. If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. 3.4 Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources section (beginning on page 3.4-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on historical, archeological, unique paleontological resources, or impact any potential to disturb any human remains. The analysis in this section is based on the "Bouquet Canyon Road Project Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment" technical report prepared by HELIX (2019), which is included as Appendix D of the DEIR. No historical resources were identified during the course of the study, and therefore, the Project would have no impact on a historical resource. Although no archaeological resources were identified within the Project site during the cultural resources investigations, there have been a number of findings of such resources in the Project vicinity, indicating a high potential to discover presently unknown resources during Project excavation work. No physical remnants of the potential cemeteries were identified; however, there is a location near proposed PA-1 which is identified as a likely location of the Chari/Suraco cemetery. Mitigation measures MM 3.4-1 and MM 3.4-2 are proposed to avoid accidental destruction of potentially significant archaeological resources. To avoid destruction of human remains associated with two known historic -period cemeteries found on -site, avoidance measures and construction monitoring will be required, and impacts would be less than significant. 3.5 Energy Consumption The Energy Consumption section (beginning on page 3.6-1) of the DEIR evaluates potential short- and long-term term energy consumption impacts as a result of the Project. The impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the Project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as the fuel Page 15 Packet Pg. 287 O necessary for Project construction. The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The increase in electricity and automotive fuel consumption over existing conditions is negligible (less than one percent). The Project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 3.6 Geolou and Soils The Geology and Soils section (beginning on page 3.6-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have regarding seismic hazards, soils constraints, and paleontological resources. The grading plan would involve an estimated excavation (cut) of 2,069,664 cubic yards and an embankment (fill) of 2,052,237 cubic yards. All earthwork would be balanced on site. Information and analyses presented in this section are based on the "Updated Geotechnical EIR-Level Assessment, Bouquet Canyon Project, Tentative Tract Map No. 82126, Southerly Adjacent to Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive, Santa Clarita, California," prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc. Compliance with the provisions of the City's Municipal Code and Building Code would reduce the following impacts to less than significant: seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, landslide hazards, erosion, and unstable soil conditions. The Project site does not intersect any known active earthquake faults. However, a fault feature was found along the north edge of the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, in the eastern part of proposed PA-3. Therefore, to ensure that the activity nature of this fault feature and whether some use restrictions are warranted are both properly determined prior to approval of a precise development plan, mitigation measure MM 3.6-1 will require additional testing of those materials to determine whether some development restrictions would be required. No record exists of vertebrate fossils being discovered on -site. However, fossils have been discovered in nearby locations in the same sedimentary deposits as exist in the Project area. To avoid a potentially significant impact to any unfound paleontological resources, mitigation measure MM 3.6-2 will be implemented to require targeted monitoring of excavation work by a qualified paleontologist who can identify fossil materials and provide instructions to avoid and recover those materials. With this measure, significant impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided. 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Greenhouse Gas Emissions section (beginning on page 3.7-1) of the DEIR identifies and quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions directly or indirectly associated with the Project and analyzes Project compliance with applicable plans, policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The total amount of Project -related GHG emissions from direct sources (including emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources) and indirect sources (including emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation) would be 6,356.91 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2eq/year). As outlined in the Tables 3.7-2 to 3.7-4 Project Consistency analysis in the Page 16 Packet Pg. 288 O DEIR, the Project is consistent with or would not conflict with the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City's General Plan. Specifically, the Project would comply with AB 32, SB 375, and SB 32, which would reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project's incremental increase in GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, Project -related impacts with regard to GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (beginning on page 3.8-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts from hazards associated with an accidental release of environmental contaminants and development within a wildland fire hazard zone. The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Project by Ramboll. The Phase I ESA identified one abandoned oil/gas well located in the central portion of the Project site. The closure of the well was inspected and approved by California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) in 1967 and a leak test was conducted in 2018 that confirms no leakage. With mitigation measure MM 3.8-1, which requires the testing of the well for leakage and the soils around the well for the presence of hydrocarbons, the Project 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 from the oil/gas well into the environment. The Project will be designed to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Code standards for development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and will implement construction phase mitigation measures to reduce the potential for accidental fires from various construction ignition sources and ensure adequate emergency access. These mitigation measures are listed in the Wildfire Section of the staff report and the DEIR. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality section (beginning on page 3.9-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water quality, drainage, and flooding. The analysis in this section is based on the hydrology study and Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) prepared for the Project by Sikand Engineering Associates in January 2020. Project construction and operation would generate a variety of potential stormwater pollutants; however, through required compliance with existing regulatory standards, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater. The Project would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which includes the preparation, and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control measures to prevent pollution in Page 17 Packet Pg. 289 O storm water discharge. The Project would provide two infiltration basins, three biofiltration basins, two continuous deflection system (CDS) units for pretreatment, and two Filterra bioretention units. Bouquet Creek would be retained in its natural contours to convey low flows of upstream surface runoff. A new engineered channel would be constructed parallel to and on the southern side of Bouquet Creek. As previously mentioned, this channel would be constructed as a trapezoidal -shaped, reinforced concrete structure, which would prevent erosion and siltation during peak storm flows. Three debris basins are proposed located in the northeastern portion of the Project site, south of PA-3, and in PA -IA. All work would be done in compliance with Los Angeles County drainage requirements and the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements. Consequently, no significant unavoidable Project or cumulative Project impacts to hydrology or water quality would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 3.10 Noise The Noise section (beginning on page 3.10-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to noise levels, groundborne vibration, and ambient noise levels. Construction The Project would generate temporary construction noise levels that could result in adverse impacts to the nearest existing homes. This impact would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measure NM 3.10-1, requiring various construction control measures such as limiting work times of noise -generating Project construction activities and locating equipment staging areas away from noise -sensitive receivers. The vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor would be below the 0.2 inch -per -second peak particle velocity (PPV) significance threshold. The construction vibration would not cause excessive human annoyance as the highest groundborne vibration nearest sensitive receptors would not exceed the 0.4 inch -per -second PPV human annoyance criteria and therefore less than significant. Project Noise Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,092 daily vehicle trips. There would be a maximum increase of 0.7 decibels (dBA), as a result of the Project, along Bouquet Canyon Road (between Plum Canyon to David Way). Therefore, the Project would not significantly increase noise levels along the roadway segments analyzed (i.e., noise increase would be less than 3.0 dBA). Furthermore, the increase of traffic due to the Project would not cause the existing noise levels to exceed the land use compatibility "normally acceptable" community noise exposure level of 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The Project's stationary noise, which includes the on -site recreation center outdoor activity noise, garbage trucks, mechanical equipment, and parking areas, would not exceed the City's residential exterior noise standards and therefore, less than significant. The fully Page 18 Packet Pg. 290 O developed/occupied Project's normal activities would not generate significant increases in local noise levels and mitigation would not be required. 3.11 Public Services Fire Protection The Fire Protection section (beginning on page 3.11-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to fire services in the City. The Project site is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is within the jurisdictional station of Fire Station 108, located at 28799 Rock Canyon Drive, approximately two miles northwest of the Project site. Compliance with existing Fire Code standards pertaining to building design, internal circulation, fire flows, and emergency access would be sufficient to maintain desired levels of fire protection services to this area. No new or expanded fire station facilities would be required to address this Project's impacts. The new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road would not be detrimental and may be beneficial from the standpoint of emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant and does not require mitigation. Public Safety and Law Enforcement ,Services The Police Protection section (beginning on pace 3.11-4) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to police services in the City. The proposed community of 375 new homes would expand the amount of suburban residential land uses in the Saugus area and affect Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's (LASD) ability to maintain adequate service ratios in this area. LASD is currently constructing a new, centrally located Santa Clarita Valley Station to replace the existing station, which would provide sufficient space to accommodate additional sworn personnel and improve SCV Station's level of service. In addition, the proposed new section of Bouquet Canyon Road would be beneficial from the standpoint of emergency access. No new or expanded LASD station facilities would be required to provide public safety and law enforcement services to the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant. Public Schools The Public Schools section (beginning on page 3.11-8) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to schools. The Project site is currently within the Saugus Union School District for elementary education, as well as the William S. Hart Union High School District- which serves students in seventh grade through twelfth grade. The four campuses within these districts that would serve the Project site area are Plum Canyon Elementary, Highlands Elementary, Arroyo Seco Junior High School, and Saugus High School. The Project would result in the addition of approximately 280 school -aged children that would potentially attend the elementary, junior high, and high schools that serve the Project area. Payment of mandatory development impact fees to each affected school district would sufficiently mitigate the Project's impacts involving added student enrollment to a level of less than significant. Public Parks The Public Parks section (beginning on page 3.11-12) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to public parks. The Project would add approximately 1,125 new residents to the City's population that could utilize local public parks Page 19 Packet Pg. 291 O and recreation facilities. Payment of parkland dedication in -lieu fees as specified in the City's Municipal Code would offset the Project's less than significant impact on the supply of public parkland. In addition, the Project includes an on -site recreation center, passive trails, and outdoor open space opportunities. 3.12 Transportation/Traffic The Transportation and Traffic section (beginning on page 3.12-1) of the DEIR evaluates the potential transportation impacts that may result from the Project. The analysis in this section is primarily based on the "Bouquet Canyon Residential EIR, Traffic Impact Analysis - Draft" (Traffic Study) prepared by Stantec (2020). The Project consists of the development of 375 residential units. The Project also includes construction of a new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road, to follow the general alignment identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Based on trip generation factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the Project is estimated to generate 3,092 daily trips, including 215 during the a.m. peak hour and 290 during the p.m. peak hour. Currently, the primary metric utilized by the City to evaluate performance of the circulation system is level of service (LOS). Traffic LOS is designated "A" through "F" with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing severe traffic congestion. Three intersections are forecast to be significantly impacted by the Project. Roadway improvements have been identified to mitigate the Project's impact at these intersections. The intersections and improvements through mitigations measures are summarized as follows: MM 3.12-1: David Way and Old Bouquet Canyon Road East: Remove existing traffic signal. Close David Way between Old Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive (eliminates south leg of the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection). Construct new east leg at David Way at Copper Hill Drive intersection and connect to Old Bouquet Canyon Road. At the David Way and Copper Hill Drive intersection, construct median island to restrict the left -turn movement (southbound left) from David Way to Copper Hill Drive and install stop sign at David Way. MM 3.12-2: Benz Road and Copper Hill Drive: Construct median island to restrict left -turn movement (northbound left) from Benz Road to Copper Hill Drive. MM 3.12-3: New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon Road East: Installation of a traffic signal. The following proposed traffic flow improvements that are in the immediate area are not significantly impacted by the Project; however, the Project would be responsible for its fair -share of the cost of these improvements. The mitigations measures are as follows: MM 3.12-4: The Project proponent shall pay the Project's fair share contribution to a collective set of improvements around the Project site would alter Page 20 Packet Pg. 292 O and improve traffic flow on Benz Road, Copper Hill Drive, Kathleen Avenue, David Way, and Bouquet Canyon Road. MM 3.12-5: Bouquet Canyon Road and Vasquez Canyon Road MM 3.12-6: New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon Road West MM 3.12-7: Kathleen Avenue and Copper Hill Drive MM 3.12-8: Golden Valley Road and Plum Canyon Road MM 3.12-9 Seco Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road MM 3.12-10: Bouquet Canyon Road and Newhall Ranch Road MM 3.12-11: Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road MM 3.12-12: New Bouquet Canyon Road and Old Bouquet Canyon Road East (Copper Hill Drive) With the implementation of the mitigation measures, all level of service impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources The Tribal Cultural Resources section (beginning on page 3.13-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on tribal cultural resources. The Project site is located within ancestral tribal territory of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). Consultation with FTBMI determined that, although the tribal representatives did not identify Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project site and there are no recorded resources on the Project site, the site is considered to be sensitive and both the City and the applicant have agreed to implement construction control measures to prevent accidental damage or destruction to tribal cultural resources. With those measures, as specified in mitigation measure MM 3.13-1, potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant. 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems The Utilities and Service Systems section (beginning on page 3.14-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water supply, wastewater, storm drain, and dry utilities (electric, gas, and telecommunications) infrastructure. Water ,Supply The Project would require water service provided by Santa Clarita Valley (SCV) Water's Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD). The development of 375 new residential units and private and common landscape areas on the Project site would generate a water demand of approximately 338.85 acre-feet per year. This would require construction of new on- and off -site water infrastructure to connect to the existing local water distribution lines maintained and operated by SCWD. SCV Water would have sufficient water supplies to meet the project's water demand. Impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater Wastewater flows from the Project site would be discharged to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Bouquet Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer, then conveyed to the Saugus and Valencia Waste Reduction Partners (WRP) for treatment. The trunk sewer and the Saugus and Valencia WRPs would have sufficient capacity to convey and treat the flows generated by the fully developed Project. Therefore, the Project would not require the construction of new or Page 21 Packet Pg. 293 O expanded wastewater collection or treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant. ,%rmwater The stormwater drainage facilities developed on -site would be designed to contain stormwater from a 100-year storm. Infiltration and biofiltration basins are designed to hold a greater capacity than the water quality volume required by the County of Los Angeles Public Works. As such, the Project would not require new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities outside of the Project limits; therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on existing municipal storm drain facilities. No unique impacts would result from the proposed on -site drainage improvements beyond the impacts evaluated for the overall Project footprint. Dry Utilities The Project area is already served by electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication service providers. The Project would require connections to existing infrastructure, such as electricity lines and natural gas mains in surrounding roadways. The Project would not require construction or expansion of existing off -site infrastructure facilities, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. 3.15 Wildfire The Wildfire section (beginning on page 3.14-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to wildfire hazards. The Project site and surrounding lands have been designated by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) as a VHFHSZ. By replacing the existing undeveloped landscape that has extensive cover by flammable vegetation with non-flammable landscape materials designed to comply with the County's fuel modification standards, installing a pressurized water system, constructing an internal street network to provide access by emergency response vehicles to all new homes, and constructing new homes with fire and ignition resistant materials, the built Project would substantially reduce the fuel loads onsite and could, thereby, reduce the volume of smoke and pollutants that could be generated if a wildfire were to occur onsite in the current conditions. Pre -construction planning and during -construction control measures are required by the City and are identified in Mitigation Measures MM 3.15-1 and MM 3.15-2, which require the applicant to develop a Construction Fire Prevention Plan and implement all construction -phase flammable vegetation removal, fuel modification landscape materials, and irrigation systems required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Mitigation measure MM 3.15-3 requires the applicant to develop an Emergency Vehicle Access Plan. Proper implementation of these mitigation measures in addition to the emergency response protocols established by public safety agencies and the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan would sufficiently reduce the Project's potential impacts during construction to less than significant. PROJECT ALTERNATJVES In preparing an EIR, alternative projects must be analyzed in accordance with CEQA to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior Project that meets the Project objectives. The DEIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project analyzed three Page 22 Packet Pg. 294 O alternatives: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development All EIR documents are required to evaluate the "No Project" Alternative to evaluate the potential impact on the environment if the Project is not developed as compared with the Project. Under this alternative, no development would occur including the construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road and all impacts would remain at current levels. Development would not be precluded with this alternative, and any future development would likely require additional analysis under CEQA. This Alternative would be environmentally superior as compared to the Project, however it would not achieve the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 5.5 of the DEIR and the objectives of the Circulation Element as summarized in the City's General Plan. Alternative 2: Reduced Grading A Reduced Grading Alternative would limit the grading of the prominent ridgeline and hillside flanks on the western edge of the site to only what is required for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Road roadway realignment. To eliminate some of the ridgeline and other hillside grading in PA- R and PA -IA, some of the homes in PA-1 and all of the homes in PA- lA could be relocated to another part of the site, in order to maintain the same total number of proposed dwelling units. One such area that provides such an opportunity is the relatively flat land located in the north/central part of the site that would be retained as open space in the Project. Some level of grading would be required to create building pads, internal streets, and utility infrastructure in that area, but it would be less extensive than the proposed grading for PA-1 and PA -IA. It is roughly estimated that several homes within PA-1 and all 12 homes in PA -IA could be relocated to the northern flatter area. Another option would be to relocate the homes from PA-1 and PA - IA to one or more of the other PAs. This alternative would reduce the aesthetic and air quality impacts associated with the Project. This alternative is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however the reduction of usable community open space and trail network connection in the north/central part of the site would be lost and the relocated residences would be constructed at the end of a single - access point 900-foot long cul-de-sac, exceeding Los Angeles County Fire Department standards. The alternative also offers the suggestion of relocating homes from PA-1 and PA -IA to other PAs. The visual and aesthetic impacts of increased building heights to three-story attached dwelling units have not been analyzed and may present an equal or greater overall aesthetic impact when compared to the Project. The relocation of units to other PAs does not meet Project Objectives A, B, and D as summarized in Section 5.0 of the DEIR: the resulting higher density would reduce the range of housing types in distinct neighborhood configurations, requiring taller and more densely developed units on the remaining PAs. This alternative's intensity of development would also be inconsistent with Project Objective G: taller and more densely developed units on a smaller portion of the site would not be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative 3: Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and ,Sensitive Habitat A Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat Alternative, which would preserve more of the open spaces on the Project site that support Waters of the United States (WUS) and streambed resources, oak trees, and sensitive plants and wildlife. Alternative 3 would consist of a modified development plan that would preserve more of the open spaces on - Page 23 Packet Pg. 295 O site that support WUS and streambed resources, oak trees, and sensitive plants and wildlife. While this could be accomplished in a variety of ways, for the purpose of this analysis, this alternative would modify the proposed plan as follows: Relocating last two to four homes at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac in PA -IA to one of the other PAs, so that the required fuel modification zones outside of the remaining homes would not extend into the cluster of oak trees that would be impacted by the proposed plan. Shifting the northern tip of PA-2 southward, to avoid impacts to a cluster of oak trees nearby that would be eliminated due to fuel modification zones requirements to protect those closest homes. A different mixture of housing types might be required to maintain or increase the number of homes in PA-2. Preserving the entirety of Bouquet Creek through the Project site in its current condition, except for the eastern end where the new Bouquet Canyon Road segment would be bridged across. Elimination or narrowing/realignment of the flood channel would allow for more homes to be built in PA-2, but would require substantial modifications to the proposed drainage system to provide an alternate means of conveying 100-year storm flows and lesser storm flows from the developed site. This alternative is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however it does not take in to consideration the hydrological impacts of leaving the entire existing floodplain in a natural state. The resulting floodplain in this alternative would leave the existing adjoining area in 100-year storm flood water depths in excess of nine feet. In order to remove the proposed Bouquet Canyon Road bridge and Copper Hill Drive connector roadways out of the resulting floodplain the bridge, roadways and all Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line and other utilities would have to be raised by approximately 11 feet. Additionally, the remaining PAs would have to be raised by several feet and the development footprint would all be clustered within PA-1 to PA-3, as PA-4 would become a part of the channel flow area. The slope banks adjacent to development, and the elevated roadways, would still need to be stabilized with concrete due to velocities in the Bouquet Creek in a 100-year storm event. The relocation of units to does not meet Project Objectives A, B, and D, as summarized in Section 5.0 of the DEIR: the resulting higher density would reduce the range of housing types in distinct neighborhood configurations, requiring taller and more densely developed units within PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3. This alternative's intensity of development would also be inconsistent with Project Objective G and would result in taller and more densely developed units on a smaller portion of the site would not be consistent with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Finally, the Project, as proposed, does fully restore and enhance the biological quality of the vast majority of the existing jurisdictional area of Bouquet Creek, consistent with Project Objective H, the alleviation of flood hazards. NOTICING As required by the UDC, all property owners and residences within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject properties and any interested parties were notified of the public hearing by mail, a public notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on May 12, 2020, and signs were posted at the site on May 18, 2020, for this public hearing. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received eight emails and letters: four in support of the Project, one neutral, and three in Page 24 Packet Pg. 296 O opposition of the Project. The letters of opposition expressed concerns about: traffic, air quality, aesthetics, biology, noise, water, home values, oak trees, wildlife, and crime. ATTACHMENTS Bouquet Canyon Project Tentative Tract Map 82126 Bouquet Canyon Project Conceptual Site Plan Bouquet Canyon Project Notice of Availability of Draft EIR Bouquet Canyon Project Comment Letters Page 25 Packet Pg. 297 O Agenda Item: I QCITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: October 6, 2020 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126; INITIAL STUDY 18-002; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2018121009 APPLICANT: Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC LOCATION: East of Bouquet Canyon Road and south of Copper Hill Drive CASE PLANNER: Hai Nguyen RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution P20-08, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018121009) prepared for the project, and approve Resolution P20-09, recommending the City Council approve the Bouquet Canyon Project under Master Case 18-089, including Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126, subject to the conditions of approval. REQUEST The applicant, Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Hillside Development Review, Landscape Plan Review, Oak Tree Permit, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, and Tentative Tract Map to allow for the development of the Bouquet Canyon Project (Project), a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related Page 1 Packet Pg. 7 O infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements on approximately 74.66 acres of undeveloped land. The Project would also include the closure of a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road, between Pam Court and Hob Court, construction of a new alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, and construction of the extension of Copper Hill Drive, in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Circulation Element objectives. The Project would require approximately two million cubic yards of earthwork to be balanced across the site, channelization of part of the floodplain through the site, removal or encroachment of 27 non - heritage -sized oak trees, and alteration of a significant ridgeline. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to respond to Planning Commission direction from the June 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, provide the Planning Commission a response to comments received during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) public comment period, and make a recommendation to the City Council for the approval of Master Case 18-089 for the Bouquet Canyon Project. Tuesday, June 2, 2020 Project introduction, summary of Draft EIR, and public comments - Completed Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Item continued to allow the staff and the applicant additional time to address and respond to both the Project and Draft EIR comments. Tuesday, August 18, 2020 Item continued per the request of the applicant to allow for additional time to finalize Project details. Tuesday, October 6, 2020 Response to Planning Commission and public comments and recommendation to the City Council Date to be determined City Council Public Hearing At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 2, 2020, staff provided a staff report and presentation to introduce the Project and Draft EIR. The Planning Commission received the staff report, applicant's presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission requested clarification on various topics including the following: 1. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval 2. Views and Setbacks from Homes 3. Bicycle Parking 4. Planning Area 4 (PA-4) Floorplan and Rendering 5. Ridgeline Exhibit 6. Recreation Center and Pool 7. Project Alternatives 2 and 3 8. Drainage Channel Design Alternative 9. Wildfire Evacuation 10. Traffic Study Summary Page 2 Packet Pg. 8 O The following is the response on these items: 1. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval The Planning Commission requested the following conditions be added to the Project's Conditions of Approval: • Condition No. PL11: The applicant shall be required to install a minimum of six fully -operational electric vehicle (EV) charging stations: three stations located in the trailhead parking lot and three stations located adjacent to the trailhead. • Condition No. PL16: The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall disclose the requirement that landscaping shall be subject to the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification and the City's landscaping requirements. • Condition No. PL24: Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. A full list of the Conditions of Approval is provided in Exhibit A of Resolution P20-09. 2. Views and Setbacks from Homes Additional information was requested regarding the views and elevations difference to and from the homes from different viewpoints. The applicant has provided exhibits to illustrate the cross sections of public roadways and the homes included as Attachment B for the following four locations: A) near existing Bouquet Canyon Road and Russ Jay Street, B) near existing Bouquet Canyon Road and Sue Drive, C) along the proposed extension of Copper Hill Drive, south of the northerly entrance of PA-4, and D) along the proposed extension of Copper Hill Drive, on the northerly entrance of PA-4 and the driveway of the adjacent residence. Cross Section A indicates an elevation difference from the road (approximate 1,368 feet) and pad on which the homes would be located (approximately 1,411) at a difference of 43 feet. Cross Section B indicates a difference of 52 feet. A concern was expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the visual and noise impacts at PA-4 near the proposed extension of Copper Hill Drive, shown as Cross Sections C and D. The proposed buildings would comply with the City's setback requirements and provide landscape buffering. The applicant would be required to apply for additional Development Reviews for each Planning Area to ensure that the residential product complies and is consistent with the proposed site development of the Project. The noise study conducted for the Project concluded that there are no roadway segments in the traffic study area network where existing or existing plus Project traffic levels result in roadway noise levels above 70 decibels (dBA) at a distance of 100 feet from the Page 3 Packet Pg. 9 O roadway centerline, specifically on David Way near Copper Hill Drive and Bouquet Canyon Road. Further, the noise study estimates the Project -related increase in roadway noise would be a maximum of 0.7 dBA as a result of the Project, well below the 3.0 dBA increase considered significant. 3. Bicycle Parking A request was made to provide clarification on the bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has provided an updated Park Exhibit (Attachment C) which includes information on the parks, trail, trash receptacles, and bicycle parking. The applicant has increased the total number of bicycle parking from 63 spaces to 68 spaces, increased and distributed the bicycle rack locations from six to 14 locations throughout the Project site, and doubled the number of bicycle parking spaces near the pool from four to eight. 4. Planning Area 4 (PA-4) Floorplan and Rendering A request was made to provide additional information regarding the floorplans and a concept rendering within PA-4. The applicant provided an architectural sheet with a typical floorplan for the PA-4 Rowtowns in Attachment D. The exhibit also calls out the carriage units, which is model type Townhome Plan One (Carriage Unit), and the location on the elevation. A carriage unit is a model type where the entirety of the living space is located above the garage, whereas the other model types include living space on the top and ground level. The applicant also provided two visual simulations of a typical living scene from within PA-4 (Attachment E). 5. Ridgeline Exhibit A request was made to provide additional information on the ridgeline alteration. The applicant provided an exhibit with isometric aerial views of the proposed ridgeline alteration in Attachment F. The exhibit indicates the sections of the ridgeline preserved and modified. 6. Recreation Center and Pool A concern by the Planning Commission was expressed that the Project only includes one swimming pool to service the entire development. The applicant has responded by providing an exhibit of the site plan and concept rendering of the recreation center and pool centrally located adjacent to the southern section of PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3. In addition, the applicant has added a "splash pad," which is a water feature/play area for families located at Pocket Park 6. These exhibits are included as Attachment G. Condition No. PL9, states that prior to first building permit, the applicant shall provide a phasing plan for all amenities including a splash pad. 7. Draft EIR Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, alternative Page 4 Packet Pg. 10 O projects must be analyzed to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior Project that meets the Project objectives. A request was made to provide additional information and graphical representation of Project Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 1 is the No Project/No Development Alternative. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, Bouquet Canyon Road alignment and Copper Hill Drive extension would not be built, and the site remains in its current state. Alternative 2 - Reduced Grading: This alternative consists of a modified site plan that would limit the grading of the ridgeline and hillside on the western side of the site to only what is required for the Bouquet Canyon Road roadway realignment, redistribute units from PA-1 and PA- I A to other areas, and eliminate PA- I A area. Alternative 2 would reduce the aesthetic, air quality, and geology/soils impacts; however, additional aesthetic and development review for compliance with the residential development standards and compatibility would be necessary. Alternative 2 is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it would result in increased building heights from two- story to two- and three-story attached dwelling units in all planning areas due to a loss of development areas in order to meet the proposed unit count and reduce the range of housing types. The resulting higher density would dismiss the input from the surrounding residents and comments throughout the Development Review Committee (DRC) review process to keep buildings to two stories or less, consistent with the surrounding community. Alternative 2 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A of Resolution P20-08). Therefore, Alternative 2 is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. Alternative 3 - Reduced Alterations to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees, and Sensitive Habitat: This alternative would consist of a modified site plan that relocates some homes in PA - IA and PA-2 to avoid clusters of oak trees and preserves the entirety of Bouquet Creek, except for the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road and bridge. Alternative 3 would reduce five types of impacts associated with the Project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and is generally considered environmentally superior to the Project; however, it has not fully analyzed the hydrological impacts of leaving the entire existing floodplain in its current state (refer to the Drainage Channel Design Alternatives discussion below). The Project would be required to raise the roadways, existing transmission lines, and other utilities. In addition, the planning area pads would need to be raised, the density would intensify, and the building heights would be increased, similar to the results in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would not meet all of the Project Objectives, as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A of Resolution P20-08). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy the eight project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. Page 5 Packet Pg. 11 O The applicant has provided concept site maps of Alternatives 2 and 3 that illustrate the results of incorporating the modifications of both alternatives (Attachment H). The differences are evident when compared to the Project Site Plan (Attachment A). 8. Drainage Channel Design Alternatives The Planning Commission directed staff to have the developer explore additional solutions to reduce impacts to the floodplain and that do not include hard -bottomed channels. In addition, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant contact the water agency, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water). The applicant has stated that the initial concept for the channel was to provide a soft -bottom channel, which would leave the current flow line undisturbed in its current location. This scenario resulted in the water surface elevation to increase up to 11 feet higher than the existing Bouquet Canyon Road, creating a "levee" condition and would not be allowed in either the City or the County. The applicant then analyzed two alternate designs to address the drainage for the Project. The first alternate design included widening the bottom, which resulted in the elimination of PA-4, encroachment on the PA-2 to the south, and did not eliminate the "levee" condition. The second alternate design, which became the design of the Project, would provide a revegetated flowline which would convey the lower intensity yet higher frequency storms in conjunction with a hard -bottom channel in parallel to convey the larger storms. This concept provides the opportunity for groundwater recharge, as well as providing restoration of the current habitat while still providing adequate flood control for the Project. A request was made by the Planning Commission to have the applicant investigate the possibility of using a soft -bottom channel, similar to the existing downstream channel. In response to this request, the applicant analyzed the same section as the downstream channel and the result would eliminate the possibility of using the channel for habitat as the bottom of the channel would need to be cleared of vegetation. To avoid a levee condition, the bottom width would need to be 115 feet for a soft -bottom versus 40 feet for the hard -bottom. To avoid the loss of the flow line vegetation, the same dual channel concept proposed with the Project would need to be utilized. However, due to the increased bottom width and the need to restore the low flow channel back to its original location and elevation, the adjacent wider soft -bottom channel would run into the existing hill and the oak grove near the existing Bouquet Canyon Road. It would also reduce the Project's developable acreage by 2.3 acres, as well as triple the length of bridge required on the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Based on these factors, the use of a soft - bottom channel to replace the hard bottom channel in the dual channel concept would not be feasible. A request was made by the Planning Commission to have the applicant contact SCV Water. The applicant initiated contact in May 2020 prior to the June 2, 2020 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant submitted a memo (Attachment I) from Thomas Harder & Co., dated July 28, 2020, that presented the results of a hydrological investigation of groundwater recharge within the Project site with the purpose of Page 6 Packet Pg. 12 O addressing the concerns referenced in the Draft EIR comment letter, dated June 3, 2020, from SCV Water. SCV Water staff reviewed the analysis and met with the applicant on September 23, 2020 and determined that the analysis provided a satisfactory answer to the agency's original comment on the Project; that the project would maintain approximately the same level of recharge compared to existing conditions. The agency recognizes the County of Los Angeles and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife currently maintain jurisdiction over this waterway. Nevertheless, the Agency indicated their preference for the natural river and stream bottom as an important source of groundwater recharge. 9. Wildfire Evacuation A request was made to provide additional information on the sufficiency of fire evacuation for the Project and surrounding neighborhoods. The Project will be designed to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Code standards for development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and will implement construction phase mitigation measures to reduce the potential for accidental fires from various construction ignition sources and ensure adequate emergency access. Pre -construction planning and during -construction control measures are required by the City and are identified in Mitigation Measures MM 3.15-1 and MM 3.15-2, which require the applicant to develop a Construction Fire Prevention Plan and implement all construction -phase flammable vegetation removal, fuel modification landscape materials, and irrigation systems required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Mitigation Measure MM 3.15-3 requires the applicant to develop an Emergency Vehicle Access Plan, which is intended to avoid impeding emergency vehicle and evacuation traffic around construction vehicles and equipment. The applicant, in consultation with the City, shall develop an Emergency Vehicle Access Plan in accordance to MM 3.15-3 that includes the following: A. Evidence of advanced coordination with emergency service providers, including but not necessarily limited to police departments, fire departments, ambulance services, and paramedic services; B. Emergency service providers will be notified of the Project locations, nature, timing, and duration of any construction activities, and will be asked for advice about any road access restrictions that could impact their response effectiveness; and C. Project construction schedules and routes designed to avoid restricting movement of emergency vehicles to the best extent possible. Provisions to be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles. Provisions could include the use of platings over excavations, short detours, and/or alternate routes. Proper implementation of these mitigation measures, in addition to the emergency response protocols established by public safety agencies and the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan, would sufficiently reduce the Project's potential impacts during construction to less than significant. A more in-depth discussion of the evacuation and the above referenced mitigation measures are in the Wildfire Section 3.15 of the Draft EIR. Page 7 Packet Pg. 13 O 10. Traffic Summary A request was made to provide additional information on the traffic flows and roadway improvements, specifically in the area along Benz Road, Kathleen Avenue, and the Copper Hill Drive extension. The applicant provided a memorandum by Stantec, dated July 15, 2020 (Attachment J), which summarizes the findings of the traffic study conducted for the Project and the roadway improvements and includes graphical representations of the traffic analysis. The memorandum also includes estimates of the existing average daily traffic (ADT) along with the ADT estimates of potential alternatives routes within the area. Traffic Engineering Division staff will be available to provide a presentation and address questions at the Planning Commission meeting. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS During the public review period from April 6, 2020 to June 5, 2020, staff received comment letters from 12 public agencies and the public. A copy of the draft response to comments was sent to each of the commenters in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. As the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council, if the Project and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are recommended for approval to the City Council, the final responses to all comments will be sent out to all commenters a minimum of 10 days in advance of the City Council hearing to certify the Final EIR and take action on the Project. The following is a summary of the draft responses to the Draft EIR comments. The complete response to the Draft EIR comments is attached to Resolution P20-08 Exhibit B: Draft Final EIR and was provided to the Planning Commission in a memo prior to the meeting: P UBLIC AGENCIES California Department of Transportation District 7 (CalTrans), dated June 1, 2020 The letter provided by CalTrans summarizes the Project description as provided in the Draft EIR and states that the proposed Project is not expected to result in a direct adverse impact to State highway facilities. The letter also includes a variety of recommendations concerning various aspects of the Project's construction and design (e.g. greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, reduction of vehicular speeds, signal timing, landscaping, and dirt -hauling). It does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or any specific aspect of the Project design. The reminder that a Caltrans transportation permit is required for the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways is noted. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 4 in Exhibit B. California Department of Fish and Wildlife_ dated June 10. 2020 The letter provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) includes comments and recommendations related to the impacts to Unarmored Threespine Stickleback, Bouquet Creek, oak trees, vegetation community, Slender Mariposa Lily, nesting birds, bat Page 8 Packet Pg. 14 O species, and California Species of Special Concern. These impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are included in Exhibit B. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 12. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, dated June 4, 2020 The letter provided by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) requests a correction and clarification on maintenance responsibility of the Project's proposed basins. A Drainage Benefit Assessment District (District) would be established to fund long-term maintenance of the on -site drainage facilities by the City. The Project developer would be responsible for maintenance of all storm drainage facilities until the District is formed and generates sufficient funding to support the City's maintenance efforts. This District would also fund any ongoing mitigation measures associated with the drainage facilities that may be imposed by state or federal water resources permits. It is noted that any proposed storm drain connections and facilities that are to be transferred to Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) would require permitting and approval from LACFCD, through the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. These revisions will be incorporated in the Final EIR and the final Engineering Services Conditions of Approval. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 7 in Exhibit B. Los Angeles County Fire Department, dated April 28, 2020 The letter provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department requests a correction on the average emergency response time for Station 108. This will be corrected in the Draft Final EIR Errata section to reflect 6 minutes and 37 seconds. The letter also lists routine design standards, standard requirements, and terms of approval to be incorporated during the plan check process in regards to the Final Tract Map, Water System, Fuel Modification, and the Forestry Division. These comments do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. The letter also identifies the abandoned oil well on the Project site, which has been disclosed in the Draft EIR. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 11 in Exhibit B. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, dated June 1, 2020 The letter provided by Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (Conservancy) expresses disagreement with the Draft EIR findings and conclusions regarding the significance of impacts related to grading of the significant ridgeline, removal of biological resources, and loss of natural open space. The letter expresses opposition to the proposed scale of landform modifications and suggests an alternative design that would reduce the level of impact to natural lands, groundwater recharge, and traffic congestion. The letter expresses support for Project Alternative 3 of the Draft EIR. The letter states that the comments expressed in the Conservancy's response to the Project's Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated March 24, 2019, were not addressed in the Draft EIR. The NOP response letter consists of questions that do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or any specific provisions of the Draft EIR; therefore, a response is not warranted. However, the response to the NOP letter is included as part of the response to Draft EIR comments in Exhibit B. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Page 9 Packet Pg. 15 O Letter 2. Santa Clarita Vallev Water Auencv_ dated June 3. 2020 The letter provided by SCV Water requests a correction on the Draft EIR's project description that the Project includes a proposed "soft -bottom" flood control channel. In fact, the proposed channel would be designed as a trapezoidal -shaped concrete channel, including a concrete lined - bottom. This will be corrected in the Final EIR Errata section. The letter also expressed concerns about the drainage facilities and recommends that, to the extent possible, floodplains remain undeveloped, and if creeks and rivers are channelized, they should remain soft -bottomed. A summary of this discussion is located in the above June 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Follow -Up section: Drainage Channel Alternatives. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 10 in Exhibit B. PUBLIC COMMENTS George Brodt, dated June 5, 2020 The letter provided by George Brodt expresses concerns about the "high density of homes in PA- 3 and PA-4" and the design of the drainage channel. The Project's overall residential density is well below the maximum allowable under the City's General Plan and zoning designations for the Project site. The ultimate flood control channel design will be reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 9 in Exhibit B. Roy Cole, dated May 21, 2020 The letter provided by Roy Cole expresses opposition to the Project. The letter also expresses opinions on impacts to the ridgeline, traffic, construction debris, wildlife, noise, property values, and air quality. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 13 in Exhibit B. Jim Crowley, dated June 4, 2020 The letter provided by Jim Crowley poses questions regarding public comment letters and the availability of the letters to the Planning Commission and City Council. The letter also expresses several disagreements with the determinations of impact significance in the Draft EIR and questions the consideration of factors related to the significance of aesthetics impacts and the effects of night lighting. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 6 in Exhibit B. Jason Davenport, dated May 4, 2020 The letter provided by Jason Davenport poses questions and concerns regarding the extension of Copper Hill Drive, traffic and pedestrian improvements, methodology of the traffic study, wildfire and evacuation, site development specifically for PA-4, air quality, noise, water supply, and natural gas source as it relates to his property. Detailed responses to each comment are Page 10 Packet Pg. 16 O included in Exhibit B. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 1 in Exhibit B. Roger A. Haring, dated June 1, 2020 The letter provided by Roger A. Haring poses questions and concerns regarding the analysis of the Alternatives section of the Draft EIR and the groundwater recharge confluence and Bouquet Canyon Watershed. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 3 in Exhibit B. Thomas Hart. dated Mav 24. 2020 The letter provided by Thomas Hart expresses concerns regarding the California's Desert Native Plants Act, specifically the Yucca plants. Focused site surveys for rare plants did not identify this species on site, and Yucca was not identified among rare plants known to occur in the vicinity of the Project, or having a potential to occur on site. The letter also expresses opinions on impacts to oak trees, ridgeline, aesthetics, and environmental impacts of the project. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 5 in Exhibit B. Susan Maness, dated June 3, 2020 The letter provided by Susan Maness expresses concerns regarding grading, housing consistency, views of homeowners, traffic, noise, traffic due to transportation for students, and a preference for Project Alternative 3 of the Draft EIR. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 14 in Exhibit B. Rita Maphis, dated June 5, 2020 The letter provided by Rita Maphis expresses opinions on the incompatibility of the Project to surrounding homes and the Project's aesthetic impacts. The letter poses questions on the proposed drainage channels, impacts on schools, park space, evacuations, traffic signals, and roadway improvements. The letter also expresses concerns regarding impacts to air quality, wildlife, and water supply. The Draft EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the Project's short-term and long-term air quality impacts, a comprehensive survey of biological resources, and a discussion on water supply resources. No further analysis was required. The comments in this letter are addressed and referenced as Comment Letter 8 in Exhibit B. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMENT LETTERS As of the completion of this staff report, staff has received 109 emails, letters, written comment cards, and speaker cards included as Attachment K. Of these, 89 are from unique individuals or groups, whereas the remaining 19 are subsequent letters from the same individuals or groups. These unique individuals or groups have expressed their positions on the Project, summarized as follows: 30 are in support, nine are neutral, and 51 are in opposition. The letters of support reference the state housing crisis, Housing Accountability Act, alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road and roadway improvements, and Project amenities. The letters of opposition express concerns about: aesthetics, air quality, biology, crime, density, home values, noise, oak trees, Page 11 Packet Pg. 17 O public services, traffic, water, and wildlife. SUMMARY OF PROJECT REVISIONS The following is a summary of the revisions to the Project since the initial Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2020: • Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-1 of the Draft EIR, which required the applicant to conduct additional testing of those materials to determine whether some development restrictions would be required, was removed because the applicant has conducted these tests and confirmed the inactivity of the fault feature. The removal is referenced in Errata section of Exhibit B of Resolution P20-08. Two adjacent parcels (APNs 2812-022-031 and 2812-008-008) were added to the Project. Portions of these privately -owned parcels would be required for off -site improvements of the extension of Copper Hill Drive and the vacation of the southern portion of David Way. • Of the 64 oak trees that were identified on the Project site, two are Blue Oak trees, which are uncommon and rare in this community. Conditions of Approval were added to require that the applicant submit additional justification and materials for review prior to any removals of the Blue Oak trees. Reduced number of oak tree removals: As previously reported, 26 non -heritage -sized oak trees would be removed and would either replaced on -site or required to pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Oak Tree Fund as required by the UDC. The remaining 38 oak trees would be saved (one oak tree with major encroachment and 37 oak trees with minor encroachments or avoided completely). The applicant conducted a subsequent analysis and modified their projections to include the removal of 15 non -heritage -sized oak trees and encroachments to four oak trees, thereby saving a total of 49 oak trees. • A Condition No. PR3 was added to require the applicant to provide a multi -use Class I trail from the Project site to the Haskell Canyon Open Space along Copper Hill Drive (Attachment L). • A Condition No. PR5 was added to require the applicant to construct a pedestrian bridge across the proposed drainage channel to provide an additional connection between Park 1 and Park 3. • The proposed gating for the Project was reconfigured to reflect that changes to the site plan and include an additional Fire Access Gate (Gate E) in the Gating Plan (Attachment M). • The main entrance of the south section of PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road was relocated to be within the Project ownership. An emergency egress from the new segment of Bouquet Canyon Road within the south Page 12 Packet Pg. 18 O section of PA-1 was added to satisfy a Fire Code requirement (Attachment O). • The proposed park area located on a private parcel adjacent to the intersection of Copper Hill Drive and David Way was removed to correct an error in the original exhibit. • As referenced in Planning Commission Follow -Up Item No. 6, the applicant has added a splash pad referenced in Condition No. PL9. CONCLUSION Based on the direction from the June 2, 2020 Planning Commission meeting and the public record, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution P20-08, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018121009) prepared for the project, and approve Resolution P20-09, recommending the City Council approve the Bouquet Canyon Project under Master Case 18-089, including Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P20-09). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Bouquet Canyon Project Site Plan Attachment B - Cross Sections Attachment C - Park Exhibit Attachment D - Planning Area 4 Carriage Units Attachment E - Planning Area 4 Visual Simulations Attachment F - Ridgeline Aerials Attachment G - Concept Recreation Center and Pool Attachment H - Project Alternatives 2 and 3 Attachment I - Hydrogeology Report, July 28, 2020 Attachment J - Traffic Study Memorandum Attachment K - Project Comment Letters Attachment L - Haskell Trail Concept Plan Attachment M - Gating Plan Attachment N - Preliminary Landscape Plan Attachment O - Tentative Tract Map 82126 CEQA Resolution P20-08 Exhibit A - CEQA Facts and Findings Exhibit B - Draft Final EIR with Errata and MMRP Project Resolution P20-09 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13 Packet Pg. 19 Planning Commission Bouquet Canyon Project Comment Letters Hai Nguyen, Assoc, Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project I am writing to document that I strongly oppose the Bouquet Canyon project. To me the negative effects of a project like this are quite obvious to existing horneowne rs/ reside nts, I am concerned about: Increased Traffic MIMMMIMIM Lack of water and pressure Negative impact on wildlife Air quality impact, especially during construction. Potential for increased crime Decreased Horne value. I am particularly concerned about the Southwest corner of the project on the East side of existing Bouquet Canyon Road. It looks like 12 buildings are slated for that area. I have reviewed the documents on line but cant tell how far Lip the hill they will go. I currently have a completely private setting on the other side of the ridgeline where I live. If that ridgeline gets disturbed and I end up with rooftops or more looking down on me that will cause a significant decrease in my property value and destroy my property's beautiful setting, impacting our quality of life. The privacy of this lot was the main reason we purchased this home in 1998. 000, Brian T. Dominici & Cathy Fratello 20531 Nickie Lane Saugus, CA 91350 rtdornklk' �, 1� (rY, �)l Irnak.('On'i 661.-9094-2111(M) Hai Nguyen From: a a <royzmail64@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:53 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Salutations, I would like to express some of my concerns after reading DEIR of Master Case 18-0089. 1 am strongly opposed to this project. There seem to several inconsistencies as to what is significant or not significant in separate parts of the document. One example is the ridge line to be flattened is significant, but not the most the most significant so it ends up being not significant in the mitigation. I believe this number of homes would have a larger effect on traffic than stated. For miles around turn lanes as well as thru lanes will be even more congested despite the mitigations. Also debris on roadways, sand, gravel, etc. seems inevitable during construction. I am also concerned for the wildlife in the area. Even the ones that are not protected. Noise during and after construction would seem to lessen the quality of life in the area. Property values near the project would probably fall. Air quality for 5 years of construction will almost certainly suffer. I am in the flag lot on Nickie Ln., so I am very close to the proposed action. Presently I enjoy neighbors only in the front of my property and a quiet isolated area. This is why I chose this house and feel it's why my property tax is so high. I would very much like to preserve my quality of life here in Santa Clarita. Thank you in advance for your attention. Roy Cole 20525 Nickie Ln Saugus, 91350 661.263.3171 royzmail64@gmail.com Hai Nguyen From: Thomas Hart <thomasemeryhart@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:11 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Comments on Draft EIR for Bouquet Canyon, State Clearinghouse No. 2018121009 CJIYWAIRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, With regards to the environmental impact report, I'm concerned that there is no mention of California's Desert Native Plants Act. There are Yucca nearby the site in question. Yucca are protected by CDN PA. See FAC, Division 23, Chapter 3, section (a); number 80073. See here: xt.xhtml?IawCode=FAC&division=23.&tititL&part=&chapte r=3.&article= Beyond this, I'm disturbed by the cavalier nature with which the oaks within the area are to be treated. Our oaks are part of the valley's heritage, and like all of Bouquet Canyon, represents resources that, once destroyed, will likely never be recovered. Finally, I think the planned ridge grading, given that it is a prominent ridge, would be a significant environmental loss. These ridges have aesthetic beauty, even when they are not the most prominent in a region. If all of Santa Clarita was left with one ridge, it would be a significant loss. While the environmental impact may seem insignificant, the city and developer should take into consideration what would occur should all other developers take the same approach. In general, I think the developer should pursue, and the city should encourage the developer to pursue, an alternative which retains to the greatest extent the current landscape, plant life, and the like - the environmental character of the area. For those who live nearby, and grew up hiking the ridges, it is not enough to relocate plants to somewhere else or to keep the most prominent one. Aesthetics and environmental impacts matter close-up, not just from a distance. I understand that the land is privately owned and that non -development is not an option from the perspective of the developer. It should be done in a way, nevertheless, that retains the environmental character of the area. Sincerely, Thomas Hart 661-478-4913 thomasemeryhart@gmaii.com 28276 Timothy Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 From: barbara nichols <barbara12703@yahoo.com> Date: May 25, 2020 at 2:48:31 PM PDT To: Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Regarding future development of Bouquet Canyon Reply -To: "barbara12703@yahoo.com" <barbara12om> CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I have lived on Brian Ct since 1980. It saddens me greatly that you are even considering the construction of 375 homes. I travel Bouquet Canyon Road every day and cannot imagine the congestion that 375 homes with 2 cars each will add. Then there is the water issue. Where will the water come from that will support these homes? This project needs to be stopped. I am sure there are other areas that can be developed that would not cause major problems for the residents that already live here. We should matter to the city as well as the money hungry developers who destroy our communities. There is nothing positive that will come from this. This project needs to be stopped! Hai Nguyen From: Deeana Betsamo <deeanabetsamo@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:03 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Support for Bouquet Canyon Development Project `II If X V N/ flIVIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Berlin: As a long-time resident of the Saugus neighborhood, I write to show my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a millennial and raised in the City of Santa Clarita, I have witnessed multiple types development. However, the developers working on the Bouquet Canyon project have created this project with a local lens. I have heard the developer speak about the project and ensure it is a smart development for our area. With our current housing crisis, millennials are going to have a tough time dealing with the purchase of a house. I for one, am not looking to leave Santa Clarita, which is why I am interested in the developments that make their way to our area. The Saugus vicinity hasn't seen a new development in quite some time and the Bouquet Canyon project is exactly what we need. It brings a tight knit community feeling with recreational areas, and private parks and trails. Furthermore, it also allows public access to trails for our full City to enjoy. The development also brings different types of units in multiple neighborhoods. This allows for each neighborhood to be unique in itself but at the same time, part of a much larger community. Our community needs this type of development. Lastly, Bouquet Canyon Road is the main access for residents in the Saugus community. Having the developer reconfigure the road to give better access for the new development, as well as the surrounding neighborhoods, proves even more the local lens the developer is using. I urge for this project to be approved and sent to City Council for a final vote. It will allow for millennials such as myself to access an affordable home in the community that I was raised in. Please vote yes for the Bouquet Canyon Development Project. Sincerely, Deeana Betsamo 26887 Las Mananitas Dr Valencia, CA 91354 Hai Nguyen From: Alen Warda <alenwarda2087@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:18 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Support Bouquet Canyon project `II If X WIf"NIIIIN&This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Berlin and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing in full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a long-time resident of the City and neighbor to the area, I feel this development brings the necessary road improvements and additional housing our area desires. As you know, the improvements to Bouquet Canyon Road will allow easier access to the new community and for residents to get through. Furthermore, new Bouquet Canyon Road will alleviate traffic for the existing residents and open up new access for them to enter the main road. Lastly, the reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road follows the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan. Overall, it will allow for a more direct route compared to the existing curve. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. As stated earlier, the developer has worked well with the neighbors and been fully transparent throughout the planning stages. They have taken all comments into consideration and were constantly updating the project to best fit the areas need. I feel the updated project falls in line with our City's vision for a smart and sustainable development. I ask for your full support and allow the developer to move to the next stage to get this project complete. Sincerely, Alen Warda 22040 Crestline Trail Saugus, CA 91390 Hai Nguyen From: demiel lachin <demiellachin@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:29 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: SUPPORT BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT CJIYWNRNIN&This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Berlin and Members of the City Planning Commission: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, Demiel Hai Nguyen From: ninveh mansour <ninvehmansour@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:53 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: SUPPORT BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT CJIYWAIRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Berlin: I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. For the past couple of years, the developer has been working with the neighboring residents, conducting open houses and personal meetings, to receive feedback on what they envision to be the right development for the area. They have then taken all comments into consideration and constantly updating their plans to best fit the neighbor's needs. Having decreased the unit count and reducing the unit stories from three to two, the proposed plan maps out a thought -well development for the Saugus community. Furthermore, Bouquet Canyon Road currently is a long, curvy road. The proposed plan will reconfigure the road to allow for easy access, not just for the new development, but for the existing neighbors around the development, to smooth travel through a more direct route. Lastly, the proposed development will bring two recreational areas, trails, park space and trailhead parking. Not only will the residents have access to the trails, but there will also be public trails for residents throughout Santa Clarita to access. This project must be fully supported and approved. The Bouquet Canyon project is the smart development our City must quickly approve. This is the type of planning we need. Sincerely, Ninveh Mansour 22116 Altair Lane Santa Clarita, CA 91390 May 4, 2020 Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR SCH No. 201812009 Dear Hai Nguyen: I appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the Draft EIR for the subject property. The main concerns I have with the Environmental Impact Analysis are directly related to the Transportation, Air Quality and Noise sections of which I have addressed below. 1. TRANSPORTATION The new road construction from the Copper Hill Dr/David Way intersection is proposed to bend around the westerly tip of my property. From my understanding, this will be a two-lane road as it is currently proposed which directly affects the way in which I enter and exit my driveway. The "bending" of the road will create a blind corner that will make it extremely difficult to exit my driveway heading in the east direction onto Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. In addition, it will be extremely dangerous to enter my driveway (left turn) heading in the east direction on Old Bouquet Canyon Rd/New Copper Hill Dr. I know this was a concern of nearby residents heading south down David Way because a median is being proposed to restrict a left-hand turn onto Copper Hill Dr heading east. Also, there is no indication of what the proposed speed limit will be on this road between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd. Will there be lighting for the street? A bike lane? A sidewalk for pedestrians? Page 3.1-30 states that new homes from viewing location 4 will be set back from the new road approximately 25-40' from Bouquet Canyon Rd. What are the city's requirements for setbacks? Safety is my concern related to the current or future infrastructure that will be in close proximity to this new road constructed around the westerly tip of my property. What is the setback for the current road proposal? I am also concerned about the driveway that is proposed to service the residents in PA4. It appears that the location will be directly across from my property and slightly off set from my personal driveway. Again, this will pose a hazard to vehicles entering and exiting in both westerly and easterly directions on Copper Hill Dr. I can see a scenario where four directions of traffic meet together in an uncontrolled intersection. Vehicles currently travel at speeds of up to 45- 60+ mph in both directions regularly. The addition of a blind "sharp" curve and a new driveway that will service 85 multi -family units, can only create an unsafe intersection and must be corrected. What mitigation measure(s) will be created to correct this condition? Referencing page 3-12.9 the City of Santa Clarita and LA County desire a LOS of C or better in residential areas. Is Copper Hill Rd, between Kathleen Ave and the proposed New Bouquet Canyon Rd, considered a residential area? Furthermore, is it part of the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element to convert this section of road from a 2- lane to 4-lane (secondary highway) in the future? Directly referencing pages 3.12-9, 3.12-10 and 3.12-12, the goals and objectives to create a Multi -Modal Circulation Network, Street and Highway System and Pedestrian Circulation are as follows: Goal C 1: An inter -connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes, provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans. o Objective C 1.1: Provide multi -modal circulation systems that move people and goods efficiently while protecting environmental resources and quality of life. Goal C 2: A unified and well -maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers, while maintaining community character. o Objective C 2.1: Implement the Circulation Plan (as shown on Exhibit C-2) for streets and highways to meet existing and future travel demands for mobility, access, connectivity, and capacity. Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable and viable alternative to driving for local destinations. o Objective C 7.1: continuous, integrated system of safe and attractive pedestrian walkways, paseos and trails linking residents to parks, open space, schools, services, and transit." It is my opinion that the proposed changes to roadways north of proposed development do not satisfactorily meet the goals or objectives above. • Policy C1.17: "Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public, including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all transportation systems." If the goal of the city is to maintain a "residential" area that promotes safety and convenience to the traveling public, what mitigation measures will be made to ensure this policy is met in the subject area? • Policy C 1.2.8: "Provide safe pedestrian connections across barriers, which may include but are not limited to major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls." By eliminating the intersection at Bouquet Canyon Rd and David Way and creating a sharp curve, there are no safe pedestrian connections to cross the street to access the Saugus area on foot or bike. What will be done to ensure this objective will be met? • Policy C 1.2.11: "Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart growth concepts." This objective will not be met, in that the proposed traffic mitigation measures are flawed. More to follow regarding this. • Policy C 2.1.4: "Ensure that future dedication and acquisition of right-of-way is based on the adopted Circulation Plan, proposed land uses, and projected demand." If the Circulation Plan calls for a secondary (4-lane) highway to be created between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd, is this proposal of a two-lane residential road in compliance with this policy? With the knowledge of future development of both residential and commercial property north on Bouquet Canyon Rd, will the City of Santa Clarita adhere to the adopted Circulation Plan that proposes Copper Hill Dr to be constructed through my property? • Policy C 2.1.5: "At the time of project level review, monitor levels of service, traffic accident patterns, and physical conditions of the existing street system, and upgrade roadways as needed through the Capital Improvement Program." I have concerns about the traffic study that was completed and the data that was used in this EIR. More to follow regarding this. • Policy C 7.1.8: "Upgrading streets that are not pedestrian -friendly due to lack of sidewalk connections, safe street crossing points, vehicle sight distance, or other design deficiencies." I touched on this above, but this policy specifically calls out vehicle sight distance as a design deficiency. What mitigation measure will be taken to the proposed road construction to correct this deficiency? Page 3.12-13 details Thresholds of Significance. The direct quote is as follows: "The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, as amended through December 31, 2019, serve as the basis for identifying thresholds determining the significance of the environmental effects of a project. Accordingly, a project will have a significant environmental impact related to transportation if it would: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 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." The proposed road extension from the intersection at Copper Hill Dr and David Way around the westerly tip of my property to the existing Bouquet Canyon Rd would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature. This proposal creates both a "sharp" blind curve and a dangerous intersection. Both of which violate the thresholds stated above and both create a significant environmental impact related to transportation. What mitigation measure(s) will be taken to correct these impacts? ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY The HCM Delay Methodology used during the traffic study was for the period of October 2018. This method has the following limitations: • There is no account for turn pocket overflow. If vehicles are spilling out of a turn pocket or through vehicles are blocking a turn pocket (right or left turns onto David Way north bound from Bouquet Canyon Rd or right turns onto David Way south bound from Copper Hill Dr to a left hand turn on Bouquet Canyon Rd in the east bound direction), the delay that would occur in the field is not included in the models output. • There is no account of spillback and starvation delay caused by closely spaced intersections. The HCM Delay model does not include any delay for queue spillback or starvation. The area in question contains two closely spaced intersections (Bouquet Canyon Rd/David Way and David Way/Copper Hill Dr). Did the HMC method that was used model the delays caused by the two closely spaced intersections? Does the traffic study take into consideration external factors that might have been present during October 2018? During this time, there was an ongoing city Road Rehab initiative that specifically targeted a section of Plum Canyon Rd south of the proposed project between Santa Catarina Rd and Via Joyce. Did this road construction have any bearing on the study? Additionally, there was a fire that occurred during the month in question in the Saugus area. Were potential road closures caused by the fire factored into the study? In summary, the HCM Methodology is a macroscopic model that contains flaws and does not accurately reflect the current, or future, LOS of the areas in question. I would recommend a microscopic simulation model be used to gain a better and more accurate understanding of the current and future traffic levels in the area north of the proposed project. With all of that said, even after the use of a macroscopic model, the data has confirmed that the David Way/Bouquet Canyon intersection will be drastically impacted by the addition of this project. This data is confirmed in table 3.12-5. To mitigate the forecasted level F LOS, it has been proposed to eliminate the intersection in question. In my opinion eliminating an intersection will not deter commuters traveling in the east/west directions across the SCV. Copper Hill Dr is the preferred route of travel across the north part of the SCV, and realigning Bouquet Canyon Rd will not change or alter this. Tables 3.12-7 and 3.12-8 summarize traffic data for future (cumulative) conditions (2028) with and without project and, with and without mitigation. It is clear that an increase of traffic is expected with or without the project. As I stated above, one of the mitigation measures to deal with the increase in traffic is to delete the intersection of David Way/Bouquet Canyon. However, in table 3.12-7 (Intersection 21) there is mention of a level of LOS F is to be expected if this intersection is under stop control. There will be a significant increase in left hand turns onto Copper Hill Dr (heading in the west direction) for north bound traffic on the New Bouquet Cy Rd. Additionally, as mentioned above, the east/west commuters are far more likely to be turning right, heading southbound on Bouquet Canyon Rd, onto Copper Hill Dr to commute around congested city traffic and multiple stop lights to access Interstate 5 in the A.M. The same can be said for the P.M. commute but in the opposite direction. What is the city's plan for controlling the intersection in question? Will there be a traffic signal? Will south bound traffic on Bouquet Canyon Rd be required to stop when making a turn onto Copper Hill Dr or will it be a yield? Page 13.12-28 details mitigation measure of Impact 3.12c as "None." • `Mitigation Measures None. Impact 3.12c: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Project roadways would be constructed in accordance with the City's design standards. The project also includes the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road in accordance with the General Plan designation of a Secondary Highway. With the realignment, any existing design features that are hazardous would be corrected. The project would construct street improvements that provide space for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. Furthermore, the Project would not construct any incompatible uses that are not consistent with the surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to the Project's geometric design features. Impacts in this regard are less than significant." I would argue that the sharp curve that will be created by converting two 90-degree intersections (David Way/Copper Hill and David Way/Bouquet Canyon) into an extreme bend will substantially increase hazardous traffic conditions. As you can imagine, this is of the utmost importance to me and the safety of my family. If the road is to be constructed in the manner being proposed, the only route that my family will have to access to/from our property is by way of an uncontrolled intersection in extremely close proximity to a blind, sharp curve. This impact must be corrected and not dismissed so easily or without appropriate mitigation measures. On page 3.15-17 information is offered regarding evacuation possibilities during a potential wildfire with the project being constructed. Once again, the road directly north of the development is in question and the following quote is alarming considering how prevalent wildfires have become in the recent past. 3 "If the hypothetical "worst -case" condition involving 375 homes evacuating and all drivers electing to escape to the north, via existing two-lane Bouquet Canyon Road to the north of the project, the peak hour V/C would increase to 1.06, indicating more than the capacity of the northbound lane. This represents severely congested conditions with difficult and highly constrained traffic flow and would represent a serious constraint to evacuating motorists." As a concerned resident, who lives directly north of the development and on the street in question, what mitigation measures will be taken to ensure that a "severely congested condition" will not occur in the event of a "worst -case" condition? The following quote is subjective and provides no real plan of evacuation other than "it is unlikely." "The two hypothetical worst -case conditions noted above where project residents evacuating the site could encounter and complicate congested peak hour roadway conditions are unlikely to occur, since it is unlikely that all of the escaping motorists would select the same routes after exiting the project site. It is more likely that motorists would select the route and direction that they believe would take them most quickly away from whatever direction a wildfire might be approaching." The hypothetical of this "worst -case condition" could easily become a reality with one road closure on Bouquet Canyon Rd, south of the development. Furthermore, to dismiss this scenario as not needing any mitigation measures is subjective and irresponsible. This is the direct quote: "Mitigation measures would not be required. Impact 3.15-b: The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not create conditions that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire." The last topic of concern regarding Transportation are the Cumulative impacts mentioned on pages 4.0-19 through 4.0-23. There are 66 ongoing/proposed projects in the Santa Clarita surrounding area that are going to have significant traffic impacts to city and county roadways. The projects directly north of the development in question, (#61: Overland 1 and #62: Overland 2) appear to be of concern and mitigation measures have been proposed to address this. Additionally, projects #41 and #46 have direct impacts to future traffic in the area. With this said, will the City of Santa Clarita be proactive in converting the stretch of Copper Hill Rd between Kathleen Ave and the New Bouquet Canyon Rd into a four -lane secondary highway? What does the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element call for and will it be strictly adhered to now or in the future, considering there are multiple developments on the horizon? On page 5.0-3 the EIR states: "Transportation and Traffic The fully developed and occupied residential community would generate approximately 3,092 vehicle trips a day, including 215 in the morning peak hour and 290 in the late afternoon peak hour. This traffic would result in significant congestion impacts at two intersections in the existing conditions scenario, and significant congestion impacts at nine intersections in the 2028 scenario. A variety of intersection improvements such as new traffic signals, traffic signal synchronization, and increased capacity for through and turning movements would be required to improve levels of service to meet the City's performance standards." Given both the cumulative and the direct impacts mentioned above, what mitigation measures will be taken to meet the City's performance standards? A Sensitive Receptor is defined as follows: "3.2.1.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The following types of people are most likely to be adversely affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day-care facilities, elder -care facilities, elementary schools, and parks." The neighborhoods around the proposed project contain multiple sensitive receptors and according to the City's General Plan the following goals and policies have been created to protect said individuals. "Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land use from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities; dry cleaners using perchloroethylene; and large gas stations, as recommended by CARB." These guidelines have been established to protect sensitive receptors now and in the future. In addition to these guidelines CEQA guidelines have been developed in order to identify thresholds that determine the significance of the environmental effects of a project. Accordingly, a project may create a significant adverse environmental impact if it would: c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations" I understand that mitigation measures MM 3.2-a and MM 3.2-b are being recommended to reduce emissions caused by the construction of the development. What is the City of Santa Clarita's stance on these measures, knowing that prior to these measures being potentially implemented, the data supports that sensitive receptors will be at risk of exposure to particles and potential pollutants? Will there be a plan in place to have the air quality surrounding the project tested to ensure mitigation measures are, in fact, working and being reported regularly? Will the surrounding public be notified of the results of such a test? Table 3.10-2 illustrates Noise Measures. However, the data used was collected in March - April 2019 during non - peak traffic hours. The time of day when data was collected was 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. If the data were collected during normal commute hours (6:00 - 9:00 a.m. or 3:00 -6:00 p.m., M - F) the noise results would be more accurate and most likely prove higher levels of noise. Regardless of this non -accurate sample, the results still show high levels of noise. The threshold of 70 CNEL was exceeded 69 times on Bouquet Canyon Rd between Plum Canyon and Northeast of David way. According to Table 3.10-4, the residential land use categories show unacceptable community noise conditions when CNEL reaches 70 or higher. According to The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) Noise Ordinance provides exterior noise standards within the City. Standard 11.44.040 Noise Limits states: "A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels ... sound levels dB of 65 (day) and 55 (night) in any residential areas." As stated above, the sound levels recorded are already above the standards set forth by the SCMC without the addition of 3,092 vehicle trips/day (215 in the AM and 290 in the PM) according to the flawed traffic study cited above. Furthermore, the EIR cites goals and policies from The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element that are applicable to the project. • Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. o Objective N 1.1: Protect the health and safety of the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels. 5 Policy N 1.1.1: Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines [see Table 3.10-4], which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise." As mentioned above the noise levels are already above the CNEL threshold as stated in the Table 3.10-4. What mitigation measures will the City take to correct these conditions? • Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. o Objective N 2.1: Prevent and mitigate adverse effects of noise generated from traffic on arterial streets and highways through implementing noise reduction standards and programs. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise -sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate." What sound barriers are going to be constructed to prevent the increase in traffic noise of the proposed 2- lane road that wraps around the west and south perimeters of my property? How will these barriers affect egress and ingress? Will these barriers add to the danger of the blind, "sharp" curve proposed? The City certainly cannot expect the property owner to take on the financial responsibility and burden of constructing sound barriers? Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate." What sort of "encouragement" will the City recommend in constructing the appropriate noise absorbing barriers around my property? Again, is the City expecting the property owner to take on this responsibility? 4. WSCELLANEOUS CONCERNS The westerly tip of my property contains a fully functional well. In addition to this, I have both a city water supply source and a natural gas source that I am extremely concerned about. What sort of mitigation measures are going to be implemented to ensure that I do not have interruptions in service for any utilities? What guarantee will be given that the road construction will not damage the vitality of my well and/or other utilities? 5. CONCLUSION Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft EIR. However, I do trust my legitimate concerns as a homeowner, resident, and parent will be taken into serious consideration well before this project is approved, finalized and construction begins. As mentioned earlier, I am most concerned about the safety of my family - my son in particular - who will be getting his driver's license in the near future. Bouquet Canyon Rd is the only way to exit and enter my property. I currently have three access points on the southern border to access this road, two of which are extremely close to the western tip of my property. I want to make sure that the people I love and care about can access and exit our home and property safely. Additionally, my son who I mentioned above, has cystic fibrosis, a life -threatening lung disease, which classifies him in the "sensitive receptor" group defined in this report. So, you can see why I am extremely concerned about the air quality, too, that will be compromised during the construction and future development of the project directly across the street from my home. Sincerely, Jason Davenport 28601 Bouquet Canyon Rd N Hai Nguyen From: Karina Winkler <gm.hixva@excelhotelgroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 10:14 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon - Support Email `II If X WIf"NIIIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members, I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, Karina Winkler 27513 Wayne Mills PI.Valencia,Ca 91355 Hai Nguyen From: Forrest, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Forrest@canyons.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:00 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Development Project `II If X WIf"NIIIINGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members, I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, VP, Economic and Workforce Development College of the Canyons 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661) 362-3144 office (314) 341-3856 mobile Hai Nguyen From: Elizabeth Delgado <liz_del@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:26 PM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: john@musellagroup.com Subject: Bouquet Canyon Development - Support Position `II If X If"NIIIIN: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members, I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, Liz Seelman 26175 Montolla Lane Valencia, CA Hai Nguyen From: Henry Rodriguez <henry.rodriguez.ud4n@statefarm.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:37 PM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: John Musella (Evolve) Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project OIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members, I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Il lh a in Ik yo u, 1Fouu. fee dllbaclk lis much allppreciated: :e :un..,.0 In,"I :u��wr���� II q�:lf:�n IHiii'111,111nry, Rf' drig ,i'ei 11119 'f "�p „The Flod "Ill will, Tearn of State 661 .9 16 1 .1 62 I Office661 250 1892 I661 250...,1958 � .......i;nsa.uii. �.un,.....� ...... 189,78 Sod e<;Iad CaN""II'Baton I3<1,„ "N„Nr a OrN , CA, 9„� 31150 hil"leet 111 IIi ea n r <Igr Corona Office Ilr'M n uger wN &,,( st : da Ac c ou r"11'U IaN IIaI"er 1 e m I e'ii d Jer iillrliilll3iier Il\4 a g<i a ea iiiio Accourt rI uull:uger °Niu,(r'll'U':[fla Iiioa;llla geN"11c:,,( Ass�stant Senior Vice Presidents Agent IIII �Il��se �III� that VA;e IIiskiµ,IIe! thirlimigh.ottt Cal.forInIa, 'IP�`otiµ µilleIf�IIeIrIII aµill'��" YIMBY Law 1260 Mission St San Francisco, CA 94103 ;I�I�...C'.ym:yl�a:w.o rg 6/2/2020 Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 :.:::.::::.0 ..satil.::..::::::.�:.q.: u��:ta...,co. .;1::cOq.:e&!,. ar.d.a.....clari a„coma.; Via Email Re: Bouquet Canyon Project Master Case No.18-089, Agenda Item 3 Dear Santa Clarita Planning Commission, YIMBY Law submits this letter to inform you that the Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality's zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to construct a residential project consisting of 375 attached and detached two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, open space, recreation areas, and landscaping. The above captioned proposal is zoning compliant and general plan compliant, therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Yimby Law is a 501(03 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law YIMBY Law,126o Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103 Hai Nguyen From: Jeff Stephan <jeff.stephan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 4:02 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Re: PC Meeting `II If X WA/ I III NGI This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Thank you. Please add to the record the following statement: The Bouquet Canyon Community Development project is just one more development project that shows Santa Clarita growing rapidly. About 47,000 homes are planned near Santa Clarita from six developments. The Centennial project estimated 19,333 homes north of Santa Clarita along with the Northlake development project where about 3,150 residential units are set to be constructed. The Vista Canyon project including office, retail and 1,100 residential areas.The Tesoro Del Valle project which includes 820 homes. Don't forget about Valencia's Newhall Ranch project scheduled to build 21,000 homes. The Skyline homes development at the top of Plum Canyon creating not one but five new neighborhoods including 1,220 homes and 188 detached condos. So what's the big deal regarding a measly 375 homes scheduled for the Bouquet Canyon Community Development? I for one am concerned about this project taking 5 years to complete. As I live next to the proposed site, I am worried for my family's health. Mountains just don't magically disappear and dust will be a large concern. Another Santa Clarita ridge line will be destroyed all for the sake of progress. I am concerned about my property value as new homes will overlook my backyard. I am upset at the fact of how our beautiful mountains and ridges - touted proudly on Santa Clarita's City seal - are quickly being destroyed. I am concerned about water resources as our community has experienced recent shortages and were asked to ration the amount. Santa Clarita Valley Water had announced in March of 2020 that they are set to voluntarily shut down 13 additional wells in compliance with new state PFAS regulations... so I ask you, where is the water going to come from for all of this new building? Who really thinks these homes will be affordable to 75% of the local population? How does the city expect to deal with the extra traffic? When is Santa Clarita's elected officials going to say enough is enough? Thank you. Sincerely, Jeff Stephan SCV resident and public school teacher contributing to the community for 20 years On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:48 PM Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Please see the attached Agenda Packet document for the following meeting: Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:00 PM 23920 Valencia Blvd. 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 WAM1111111•11 11 Docuirrient Plodlfled5/28/2020 1205 F)PI Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Email: Lnguvena-santa-clarita.com Web: http://www.sa ta-clarita.com ("I'l I, o), S�N'""M%"�-"",LARITA Hai Nguyen From: Liz Tolentino <liz@realestateliz.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 6:18 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: In Support of the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WIf"NIIIINGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members, I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, Liz Zamudio-Tolentino 25124 Springfield Ct. Suite 100 Valencia, CA 91355 Liz Tolentino REALTOR @ Text/Call 661.904.8471 Keller Williams VIP Properties CaIBRE 01748524 Hai Nguyen From: Rachel A. Clark Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:21 PM To: Hai Nguyen; Patrick Leclair; Jason Crawford Subject: FW: Questions regarding Bouquet Canyon Project Please see the comment below From: Heather Carrasco [mailto:carrasco.heather@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:18 PM To: Rachel A. Clark <RACLARK@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Questions regarding Bouquet Canyon Project OIYWNRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi there, I have questions, and I'd love for one of the commissioners to ask these questions of the traffic management. I've been watching the meeting, and I appreciate all the questions and concern for the current residents. I live in the Saugus area at the corner of Alaminos and Benz, and those traffic calming measures barely work. That said, I have two main questions: 1) for those of us who live in this part of the area, with no left turn from Benz to Copper Hill, and Bouquet Canyon ending just past us, it seems that our options to get out of the neighborhood easily become limited, especially if we're trying to get out to Copper Hill. I'm assuming the plan is that we all go to Kathleen in order to make the left there? 2) would the bus line continue to run down Alaminos, or would that be rerouted onto the new Bouquet Canyon Rd? Thanks in advance, Heather Carrasco 20706 Alaminos Dr, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 714-454-8054 Hai Nguyen From: Alex Hutson <alexohutson@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 8:47 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Community Development CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I am an SCV resident for nearly 30 years. I vehemently against the continued development in Santa Clarita and in particular, Bouquet Canyon and continued Plum Canyon. I would love for my children to experience the beautiful nature in abundance as I have. If Santa Clarita turns into just another large city, most of us that have been here for decades with find another place and it will turn into just another overdeveloped city. We have a chance to stop. It should be considered for the good of our community and children. Alex Hutson Hai Nguyen From: Jeff Kuykendall <jeff4doors@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:53 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project OIYWNRIVNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I am writing because I am very concerned about the traffic consequences of the proposed realignment at the termination of Copper Hill. The way I understand it, under the proposed plan you will not be able to make a left turn from David Way on to Bouquet Canyon. This means all the north bound traffic from Copper Hill to Bouquet Canyon will be forced on to residential streets. I live on Alaminos in between Kathleen and Hob Court and I foresee a steady stream of cars going past the houses in this area and the ones north of Copper Hill. With all the money being spent on this project, it seems there ought to be a better way to handle this situation. Sincerely, Jeff Kuykendall 20512 Alaminos Dr Saugus, CA 91350 ieff4doors@�mail,com 213-220-8108 Hai Nguyen From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 1:33 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: 6.3.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR `II If X WIf"IIVIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Mr. Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner of the City of Santa Clarita Thank you for your prompt follow-up and confirmation. Please Note: The Public Comment Letter submitted is in "Opposition" of the current proposed project based on the information observed in the DRAFT EIR. However, I would like to further review commissioner's comments and questions at the "next" Planning Commission Meeting in July (7th). Thank you for your consideration, Roger A. Haring On June 3, 2020 12:35 PM Hai Nguyen <hnguyen@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Thank you. I will include this in the record. Hai Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-365 Email: hnguyen -Santa-claritaecom Web: http://www.santa-claritaecom .ICIL A.RS F From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:27 PM To: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Y`II If Y WAIflITIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good afternoon Hai Nguyen, Please find the ATTACHMENT to this email (above) for public comment on the Draft EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project. Please include it in the project record. Please CONFIRM receipt of this email and ATTACHMENT. Thank you, R.A. Haring Bouquet Canyon Network On June 2, 2020 10:50 AM Hai Nguyen <hnguyen@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Good morning, Yes, we are still accepting comment letters on the Draft EIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project. Please feel free to email any letters to me directly and I will include it in the project record. Have a great day, Hai Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-365 Email: hnquyen -Santa-clarita.com Web: htto://www.santa-clarita.com From: rah <rah@a ncultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:26 AM To: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN santa-clarita.com> Cc: Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN santa-clarita.com> Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Y`II If Y 1L(Tlf"NIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good morning! Mr. Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner- Bouquet Canyon Draft EIR Manager Today, June 2, 2020 at 6pm the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission is scheduled to meet and discuss the DRAFT EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project (State Clearinghouse Number: 2018121009) I would like to confirm that you are still receiving public review and comments on this DRAFT EIR (April 6 to June 5, 2020), and would like ensure that proper submission protocol is followed. Please confirm receipt of this email, and I will follow-up with a Comment Letter via email. Thank you, Roger A. Haring Hai Nguyen From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:27 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Attachments: BCN COMMENT LETTER ON DRAFT EIR Bouquet Canyon Project 2020.pdf Y`II If Y WAIflITIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good afternoon Hai Nguyen, Please find the ATTACHMENT to this email (above) for public comment on the Draft EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project. Please include it in the project record. Please CONFIRM receipt of this email and ATTACHMENT. Thank you, R.A. Haring Bouquet Canyon Network On June 2, 2020 10:50 AM Hai Nguyen <hnguyen@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Good morning, Yes, we are still accepting comment letters on the Draft EIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project. Please feel free to email any letters to me directly and I will include it in the project record. Have a great day, Hai Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-365 Email: hnguyen -Santa-clarita.com Web: http://www.sar:ta®olaritavoom ICIL A.RS F From: rah <rah@agricultureaccess.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:26 AM To: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Cc: Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: 6.2.2020: Submission on Comment Letter on DRAFT EIR Y`II If Y WNf"NIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good morning! Mr. Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner- Bouquet Canyon Draft EIR Manager Today, June 2, 2020 at 6pm the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission is scheduled to meet and discuss the DRAFT EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project (State Clearinghouse Number: 2018121009) I would like to confirm that you are still receiving public review and comments on this DRAFT EIR (April 6 to June 5, 2020), and would like ensure that proper submission protocol is followed. Please confirm receipt of this email, and I will follow-up with a Comment Letter via email. Thank you, Roger A. Haring June 1, 2020 Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Email: HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com Phone: (661) 255-4365 COMMENT LETTER TO THE SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner of the City of Santa Clarita This Comment Letter is for the Draft EIR: The Bouquet Canyon Project This Comment Letter is submitted within the 60-day review period (April 6, 2020 to June 5, 2020). This Comment Letter would like to address the Draft EIR: Bouquet Canyon Project, Chapter "5.0 Alternatives" and Chapter "3.0 Geology and Soils." After an overview of the entire Draft EIR entitled: The Bouquet Canyon Project, from the City's website[https://www.santaclarita.com/cityhall/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/environ mental -impact -reports -under -review], it has come to the attention of the Bouquet Canyon Network (BCN) that the Alternatives proposed for this particular property site would have a much greater "net benefit" to the local community and environmental resources of this region of Santa Clarita Valley, then the project currently proposed! Under the EIR Chapter 5.0 Alternatives, the analysis performed by the CEQA Guidelines, suggests that the "No Project/No Development Alternative" would have the least impact on the project site location. Of the various Alternatives examined for the project site, two categories were defined; as either: "considered and rejected" or "selected for evaluation." Those Alternatives that were "considered and rejected" include: 5.3.1 Fewer Homes, 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, and 5.3.3 Alternative Locations. The question(s) presented below examines the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses, which in reality, should be seriously considered and forthrightly questioned: Why would the Alternative 5.3.2 Other Types of Land Uses for this particular property not be considered? Even if 5.3.2 is outside the objectives of the City's land use policies, it should be seriously vetted for this particular location because of the natural resource of water that is endowed at this site. What must be studied, and thoroughly understood by the city's planning commission is that the location of this proposed project can and will have impacts on water resources of the region. A city planning commission must utilize a variety of both scientific and analytical approaches to determine where development projects should be developed, and where it should not be developed. In this case "a new road, a new home track, and a new concrete channel" is being proposed on top of an important floodplain and aquifer directly connected to the EASTERN SUB -BASIN in the Santa Clarita Valley! Would developing this location with the proposed project cause alterations, diminishment, and compression a significant aquifer that helps recharge a portion of the Upper Santa Clara River Water Valley? Yes, it will. Why is development of "roads, homes, and hardscapes" permitted to take place atop of a "groundwater recharge confluence"? Is it beneficial, in both the short-term and long-term, to consider that "our local water resources" as limited they may be, are as valuable to our "safety and health," as adding more and more "roads, homes and hardscapes" to our finite canyons and hills??? This concept of utilizing land appropriately for development, based on the natural resources available, must be taken very seriously, and added to the planning commission's decision protocol. All properties with unique watershed characteristics, especially those endowed with particular water recharge capacities, must be conserved for future generations in order to conserve those natural resources for the well-being of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed has for centuries supported the Eastern Sub -Basin of the Santa Clarita Valley, and continues to serve as a "diverse biological reserve" to more than just a few endemic species of plants and animals that rely on these local water resources. Only a few of those species were mentioned in this particular DRAFT EIR. As described in the current DRAFT EIR, under Chapter 3.0 Geology and Soils (3.6.1.3 Local Groundwater Conditions, pp. 200); the report acknowledges this site is located on the "periphery of the East Subbasin of the Upper Santa Clara River Groundwater Basin." The groundwater in this particular site is reported (according to the California Division of Mines and Geology (CD MG), 1998) to exist at depths of "40 feet or less below the ground surface." Furthermore, the CDMG Report goes onto indicate that "historical high groundwater depth of the site varies from approximately 40 to 10 feet below the surface." Hence, this particular property site has a history of a "high water - table," and would be likely to function as an "ephemeral recharge zone" now and into the future. By developing this site, permanently altering and compressing the landscape and aquifer, it will simply lead to less water captured and less water recharged to the East Subbasin. The present DRAFT EIR goes on to note that in the recent field investigations into the alluvial sediments, "groundwater levels are significantly lower than reported in the literature." Ironically; however, "two water levels were measured at depths of 45 and 50 feet below ground surface." So, what does this mean? In short, there is a high probability for this particular property to "capture and store" water. The Upper Santa Clara River Watershed, has many tributaries that feed and replenish its aquifers, but some of these particular tributaries are more capable of providing this ecological service of "capture and storage," then others. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed does and will continue to provide a significant "ecological service" for the Santa Clarita Valley basins. Additionally, this particular property site has both a unique topography and geology, with landscape and soil properties able to channel water below ground efficiently and support an unique microclimate. Even without the current "contractual release" of the upper Bouquet Canyon watershed stream flow (5 cfs per year), the decade's long -drought (2009- 2018), and lower precipitation in region over the last few years, this particular alluvial floodplain is still showing a relatively high -water -holding capacity (40-50ft below the surface) as the DRAFT EIR indicates. Hence, it should be obvious to all planning stakeholders involved in the development projects of this nature, that there are regions of the Santa Clarita Valley which should be seriously protected for preserving water resources. This is one of those property sites. In conclusion, there are many ways in which property owners, planning commissioners, and public agencies can creatively and equitably develop property in the Santa Clarita Valley. What must be taken to task here at this moment, and at this particular property site for development, is knowing what is the best, safest, and healthiest of outcome of developing this property in a responsible and sustainable manner. It is something, we believe, we can all agree upon: Water is the best resource to conserve. 2865OKathleen Ave 8antaC|arita [A9138O 661-263-0041 May 24`2O2O City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 2]920Valencia B|vd,Suite 3OO Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Sirs &K4adams, I am writing to express my concern of not being notified of the Planning Commission meeting for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Residential Project. ProposedchanQes especially relative totraffic flow, have adirect impact onmnyproperty. I am also writing to note my objection to any modification to the existing ridgeline to facilitate this project. Additionally, I would like to request that the proposed signal on Copper Hill Drive at Kathleen Ave be configured with designated !eft' urn arrows, to impede traffic entering Kathleen Ave athighway speeds. Thank you for your consideration, Linda Ricks I gn v S A rIT Hai Nguyen From: Susan Maness <susan.maness@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:10 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: EIR Bouquet Canyon Project Y`Il if Y If"IIVII 4&4 This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Mr. Hnguyen, After reading this report, I must express my OPPOSITION to the Bouquet Canyon Project as you propose for the following reasons: 1. It is impossible to fully understand the scope of this project and its environmental impact since there are no elevation viewpoints shown to address the extent of grading and soil removal of the City designated "significant ridgeline" in order to mine soil for the realignnment of the New Bouquet Canyon road. 2. It is stated in the EIR that proposed housing is consistent with surrounding single family homes. How can you say row Townhomes qualify for that classification since none exist in the area? 3. The intent of the plan is to maintain views for "travelers". Where do you state the intent for current tax paying homeowners to maintain their existing natural views? 4. It is stated that the current habitat supports 4 wildlife species, none of which were seen in your observation of the site. You DID NOT LIST the species. From my yard, I observe red tail hawks circling and hunting in that area as well as coyotes seeking food sources along with rabbits and other birds. 5. It is stated that the project will pay in -lieu fees to the City because it lacks sufficient land per unit use for a proper size park. How will occupants of said project get to surrounding city parks in order to enjoy their benefit? I suggest this is just one element that will increase traffic flow/pollution. 6. The report appears to imply every point of egress/ingress to the project and surrounding areas is subject to a "D" level at certain times. Traffic impact will be notable for all areas surrounding the project at peak traffic hours (D, E, F) with a statement that any mitigation you implement will have a "less than significant impact". The EIR seems to repeatedly imply there is no significant impact that can't be mitigated yet you fail to prove that as true. Moving traffic from one area simply redirects it to another; there is no benefit for everyone. 7. NOISE will increase as the traffic flow increases from the new residents, as you subtlety stated. 8. All students will have to be transported to education facilities, increasing the daily traffic flow. 9. The surrounding communities will be impacted for 5 years as this project, as it stands, is built out. 10. Why is the #2 Alternate wedged between 1 and 3? Is it because it is a fully viable alternative that will lessen the impact of ridgeline loss, earth movement, air quality, noise, pollution, and quality of life for those subject to enduring construction for builder benefit? The only way to make this project better for the existing community is to default to the plan that truly mitigates the enormous impact for current homeowners. #2 Alternate is the only possible potential option. z Hai Nguyen From: Carolyn Blackledge <crblackledge@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:26 PM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: Carolyn Blackledge Subject: NO on the Bouquet Canyon 375 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. As a resident of the Santa Clarita valley along with my family, we need to impress upon you a resounding NO! We need to not do the Bouquet 375 development. Our streets, schools, and valley as a whole is already over congested and thus will only make things worse. This is a beautiful place to live but is already stretched too far and overcrowded. Please stop this! We who live here and people we know who may want to live here certainly do not want this at the cost of congestion, overcrowding, full resources. Carolyn R Blackledge Bouquet -Copper Hill area Hai Nguyen From: Linda De Vita <Idevita8@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:44 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Street Realignment and housing construction CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. We strongly object to the realignment of Bouquet Cyn and proposed housing development! The realignment will hurt existing people living in the area! The housing construction will create a lot more traffic and hinder us being able to evacuate for any and all necessary situations. It will also harm the riparian habitat and ecology of an already stressed area. If you are not the person to whom we should protest, then please direct us to the correct person or agency. Please log our complaint/ protest to the above issues. Sincerely, Linda and Gerald De Vita 20050 Hilltop Ct Saugus, CA 91390 Ldevita8@hotmail.com 661-400-3449 Hai Nguyen From: nancy <nancy@elitestates.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 10:56 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Development `II If X WA/ I IITIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Berlin and Planning Commission Members: The City's Planning Commission should give FULL support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Sincerely, Nancy Starczyk 25350 Magic Mountain Prkway #190 Valencia, CA.91355 Sent from my Verizon, .Samsung Galaxy smartphone Hai Nguyen From: Laurel Taylor <Ipt1438@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:57 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn development `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Mr Nguyen, I am writing this email to you to oppose the project planned for the Bouquet Cyn area. This proposed development is going to have an extremely negative effect on the existing neighborhoods. I live off of Benz and Alaminos and the traffic thru our neighborhood is already dangerous and heavy. People cutting thru from Coppehill or using neighborhood streets for short cuts. Even with speed bumps it does nothing to quell the situation. This project will push more traffic into our neighborhood even on to streets currently not as affected by current flow. The additional stress on our schools which are already crowded and have waiting lists for some grades will diminish the quality of our children's experience. I believe the size is too much for this already stressed and squeezed part of the canyon. I viewed the meeting on the public channel on Tuesday and was appalled that there was not more serious questions asked regarding traffic,schools, utilities, fire and public safety not to mention the effect of the existing neighborhoods. 375 homes is too many and the additional 750-1000+ cars a day it will add is not viable even with road expansion. While I have come to understand this has been the works for some time, the sign was posted regarding the meeting and proposed development very recently. I truly hope this is not going to be pushed thru without truly getting community input. I am all for responsible development but I do not believe this project is truly in the best interest in it's current size for our neighborhood. I would also like to add that I have been a resident of SCV since 1976 and have lived all over the valley(my first home was in the American Beauty off Bouquet, North Valencia, The Woodlands, out in Bouquet Cyn on acreage and in Tesoro) so I feel like I have seen many different projects become successful at enhancing the community. I don't feel this is one of them. Thank you, Laurel Taylor 28334 Mist Ct Saugus, Ca 91350 818-378-5171 City of Santa Clarita Planning Division June 4, 2020 Attn: Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner- Bouquet Canyon Draft EIR 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 I want to thank you for your fine presentation during the zoom meeting of Jun 2, 2020. However, after consideration, I am in opposition to the Bouquet Canyon High Density home development and road realignment designated as project 18-089. Please included this letter as part of in the EIR written inputs. As I understand it the next step will be to present the information and public input proposal to the Santa Clarita City Council for review. May I start with a basic question related to the process. Do the council members and Planning Commission have access to the comments and letters such as this to read before city council meeting? And are they required to read them? And most importantly, will the Planning Commission or City Council respond to the individual public concerns? Are they required to respond? Your letter regarding the meeting of June 2 seems to answer my questions as it basically squashes all written public input with the statement "Comments will be made part of the meeting record, but not read into the record." Does anyone read them? This project brings a lot of thoughts to mind for planning considerations for project 18-089. 1 find it difficult to address them all so I will try to highlight a few thoughts and examples. As a resident of the area in question for 49 years I have watched the area expand, resulting in increased needs of the community and resultant environmental impacts. As we go ahead, we need to be sensitive to creating future negative impacts on thousands of people. This project violates many of the EIR concerns as it addresses those elements. Many times, it mentions how it would not meet a standard. While it would not present a problem, it presented a condition with less than significant impact, or similar wording. Adding all the exceptions and waivers presents a development not meeting the local community standards as required. In addition, if it did not meet a standard or regulation, an exception was being requested in the form of a waiver or exception to the standard. In one case the offer was to pay a fee to the city where they did not or could not meet city guidelines. In the big city picture, it moves the process ahead. Where is City's integrity? It is sad that a development can relegate regulations and standards to the trash. Why did we ever set standards or regulations? The ridge line ordinance comes to mind. I was particularly offended by the proposal's concern for maintaining the views for "travelers." If the project violates the ordinance to not change the ridge line, then it fails. End of discussion. What about the views of the residents across and above the development? Residents on Contessa Ave (zip 91350) come to mind. They will now be looking down on rooftops and congestion in lieu of ridgelines or wildlife.... and see polluting bright lights in their bedrooms at night. Also, the removal of local Oak trees was passed over like it was no big deal. It is a big deal. Other issues have been sent to you by many people and friends such as Susan Maness who beautifully addressed many I have not. I agree with Susan 100%. In closing, I am opposed to this project and will be contacting the City Council members so the Mayor doesn't just ask the question, at the public meeting, of you and staff, "Do I hear a motion... Should the project be approved since everything was answered?" Hardly, issues and concerns were just added to the file and everybody says Yea and life goes on. Sincerely, Electronically signed Jim Crowley 20946 Alaminos Dr Saugus, CA 91350 (661) 755-7377 June 5, 2020 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT LETTER (ORIGINAL LETTER SUMBITTED ON 5/4/20) Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR SCH No. 201812009 Dear Hai Nguyen: Subsequent to the Planning Commission's hearing on 6/2/20, a new, and extremely impactful concern has been brought to my attention through my own research and inquiry. I was unaware that a portion of my property (3,296 sq. ft.) is required in order to construct the segment of roadway that will link Copper Hill Dr to Old Bouquet Cyn Rd. I am shocked that neither the applicant nor the City informed me of this very big detail in this project. It also makes me wonder how long I would have been kept in the dark on this matter. This new revelation is extremely concerning and only further strengthens the concerns I expressed in my original comment letter. Here is a direct quote: "The main concerns I have with the Environmental Impact Analysis are directly related to the Transportation, Air Quality and Noise..." I strongly encourage and plead with the members of the Planning Commission to read my original comment letter and consider all the impacts and hardships this road will have on me and my family. If constructed, this road will substantially devalue my property by not only taking 3,296 sq. ft. of my property, but also by taking a portion of the most valuable, flat and usable portion of my property. This will hinder my vision to develop the property as I intended to when I purchased it. I am disappointed that I was not contacted or consulted at all regarding the design process for the road extension. Furthermore, I am extremely disappointed that I have not, at any time, been approached by the applicant regarding any community meetings or information about the project. I have not received one mailer, flyer, phone call, email or text. The only reason I knew about any of the meetings is because I found out on my own. ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND ME HAS BEEN INITIATED BY ME. Basic question: If the project necessitates the acquisition of my property, don't you think it would be a good idea to initiate communication with me? I was only recently contacted by the applicant on 6/2/20 after I submitted a written comment for the hearing that was held that same evening. To his credit, the applicant was apologetic to which I am thankful for. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the EIR and I look forward to receiving responses to the concerns that I have. Thank you, Jason Davenport 28601 Bouquet Canyon Rd Hai Nguyen From: rita maphis <ritamaphis@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 4:25 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: EIR Comments CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Rita Maphis 20057 Terrace Court Santa Clarita, CA 91390 ritamaphis@yahoo.com Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner Bouquet Cyn Project 18-089 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com Mr. Nguyen, First of all I would like to apologize for any comments/questions that have already been covered in the EIR. I first heard about this on this last Monday, and attended the virtual meeting on Tuesday. I was overwhelmed by the amount of data being presented. I tried to take some quick notes and after the meeting have spent many hours plodding through the EIR to find the answers to my questions. I simply ran out of time. Perhaps you would consider extending the deadline to allow anyone to further read this extremely detailed report. I appreciate your help and anxiously await some response. Sincerely, Rita Maphis COMMENTS: 3.1 Aesthetics All around this Project parcel are farms and ranches. On one side a single family homes. I don't see how the Project blends in with the existing homes. The photos in this section show the current theme of the area, and the Project completely changes it. The Project also proposes changes to the ridgeline which will most certainly affect the aesthetics of the area. The single home that currently is in a rural open space will now be surrounded by the city -like Project. If this were my home, I would be deeply saddened that my property was so changed. 3.2 Air Quality It does not seem logical that adding 370 homes and possibly 1400 cars to this rather remote area will not have a significant effect on the air quality here. The Report lists several "sensitive receptors" located near the Project, but does not seem to address what is to be done about it. Also, what about all the residents that individually sensitive to a decrease in the air quality? 3.3 Biological Resource How is our wildlife affected? Coyotes are already a problem with less natural space for them to hunt and live. People are always complaining about the danger to their pets, but the coyotes have had so much of their environment encroached upon, they're squeezed into our backyards where they find "Fluffy". There are so many eagles, hawks, roadrunners, and owls. We keep taking away their trees. Cutting down the trees and then "paying off' the city for the ones that "couldn't" be replaced is not a good solution. 3.9 Hydrology We have been routinely plagued by droughts. Though we have had a couple of good rainfall years, this is not the norm, and we have to expect more shortages in the near future. Building any large project on an area that currently is open to collect and absorb large amounts of rain water is increasing the chance of shortage, and adding 370 homes (1400 residents) to the demand is dangerous. During the June 2 meeting I understood that two channels were being built through the Project; one concrete bottomed and one dirt bottomed. I reading the EIR I only see the part about the "soft -bottomed" channel. Also at the meeting, I believe we were told that the concrete channel would connect to the existing concrete channel. To my knowledge the channel is dirt -bottomed all the way down past Seco Canyon Road. Is this where a new channel is connecting? One benefit of having Bouquet Creek channel here is to help ameliorate the flooding of our canyon should there be any catastrophic break at Bouquet Dam. How does changing the flow of that creek make it safer for those of us living in the canyon? 3.11 Public Services This many homes could add —700 children to our school system. Where would they go? How would they get there. More cars. More traffic. 3.12 Transportation Residents who now access Old Bouquet Canyon north of Benz and south of Hob, will be unduly impacted as will those who live on upper Alaminos. Currently those on Bouquet can simply turn to go up(north) on Bouquet Canyon; they will now be forced to drive south to Benz, then north on Alaminos to enter Bouquet Canyon going north. This seems like a strange place to create a park, in the middle of a well -used road. Where are the traffic signals going to be? At the June meeting I understood that the changes to Bouquet would eliminate the traffic issues at Copper Hill/David Way/Bouquet. Figure 2-5 does not show Copper Hill merging into Old Bouquet Canyon, but still going through two T's one at David Way, and one at Old Bouquet. Will this complex intersection continue to be controlled by the Stop sign at the first T and a signal at Bouquet? Will there be pedestrian walkways and bike paths to allow residents from the existing homes to access the trails/bike paths created in the project? How does the merge of Old Bouquet and New Bouquet work both north and southbound? Northbound: is it a signal -controlled intersection? Southbound:?? Will Old Bouquet Canyon Road be open for the entire duration of the construction (until New Bouquet is completed and available)? I'm not sure which section this comment belongs to, but I am certainly concerned about evacuation in case of fire, flood, earthquakes, etc. We currently have 2 evacuation routes, south on Bouquet or north east over Vasquez to Sierra Highway. Vasquez has a reputation of slides and other causes for closure. This leaves us reliant on Bouquet as our only escape route. Adding more traffic here is certainly a concern. Also during construction will our egress be compromised at all? Hai Nguyen From: George Brodt <gbrodt@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:22 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project DER OIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Mr. Nguyen, I read the draft EIR for the subject project and have a concern about the high density of the homes in PA-3 and PA-4. This is inconsistent with the single family homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. As a registered Civil and Geotechnical engineer, it is my opinion that the connection of the new Bouquet Canyon and the existing Bouquet Canyon trapezoidal channels will require training walls in the confluence to prevent extreme flood flows from backing up into the project area and flooding the homes in PA-4. The confluence of Haskell Canyon with Bouquet Canyon channel is a good example of what I am talking about. Sincerely, George W Brodt California RCE 19647 California RGE 167 Hai Nguyen From: Ha Trinh <htrinh63@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 8:03 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: New Bouquet Development Y`II If Y If"NIIIIN: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. My name is Ha Trinh. I'm a resident of the affected area of the new plan for Bouquet development. The city council met online on 6/3 to speak about the new planned 375 unit residential project that will impact Bouquet Cyn from roughly Benz through David Way. I'm against the development due to the drastic effects it will cause on the environment in and around the area. First of all, it does not meet the SCV City criteria of being like the surrounding area. I think that the location and the size of the project is a real issue in terms of already stressed resources and the impact these new homes are going to have on existing neighborhoods. I live near Benz and Alaminos and I feel the impact of commuters every day even with the speed bumps it is a disaster. How will the residents off of Kathleen, David's Way, and even more through Benz and Copperhill feel when there is more traffic thru neighborhoods as people continue to find a short cut home or to the canyon? 375 homes will equate to almost an additional 750+ cars a day. Next, have you even plan the stress on schools that are already crammed with waiting lists. I appreciate that they are looking at open spaces and trails but again this is more of a sales technique to win people over. I believe in growth for our community as housing is a real issue but this is just too much in an already badly constricted area. I feel like even though this may have been "in the works" for some time it has not been presented to the community properly. I also am concerned about the development that does not fit the aesthetics of the area. The city has rules that go back to the 1990s that basically say development is to be consistent with existing developments not change the local aesthetics. This development will fail the aspect. The home views from across the BC creek will be destroyed. And light pollution at night will be bad all around. You may claim that the use of new fixtures could mitigate that problem but it is proven. Therefore, this is going to have a big impact on my neighborhoods. Please reconsider the plan for this new development since it'll cause traffic congestion and pollution. It'll put stress on school enrollments. Lastly, it will destroy the aesthetic value of the area. Sincerely, Ha Trinh 28146 Shelter Cove Dr. Santa Clarita, Ca. 91350 Check out my classroom projects at http:ZZwww. onorschoose. Hai Nguyen From: FRANK WACHTER <jojofw4@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 4:29 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I know your Job is to create, expand, and develop, and you prob get these disputes from every new project, but can you tell me exactly what the population cutoff is in a designated area? Has anyone done a projection test of the effects of 385 homes added to a small Den that bottle necks? And it seems to me your not making bouquet the alleviate congestion in the neighborhood. Looks more like the answer to the projection- more houses, more cars, more sprawl. Can you tell me what the projection is for this whole area above the detention center? How far are you guys planning to suffocate this location? Is Vasquez and bouquet going to be a mall? Obviously, I oppose this development yet I expect my opposition will go by the wayside like everyone else's. I'd just like to know if any of you bother to sit here on Kathleen and listen to the traffic crap morning and night, the cars screeching, the speed races, the blown stop signs, the buses, etc. do any of you bother to put yourself on our shoes? You prob have nice quiet cul-de-sacs you go home to, but what about our nice once somewhat quiet area? I can't stop this development. I wouldn't be too objectionable to this if you weren't putting the 100 homes in right by our old developed community. You want to put all that along the new road, so be it, they're all new developed areas. Our side has been here since early 80s and it's not fair you destroy it Sincerely FW Sent from my iPhone Hai Nauven From: Barbara Prindle <ptprindle@att.net> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:49 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Greetings, In regards to the Bouquet Canyon Project, first off I have spoken with many local residents that said they had not idea about the road closure on Bouquet Canyon and that this project was moving so quickly. Due to Covid 19, local protesters, and the fact that the Planning commission held the public Hearing on June 2nd which coincided with a local High School Virtual graduation, we the residents ask for an extension and another meeting to be held regarding this PROPOSED PROJECT. If possible in PERSON, either inside or outside would be ideal as many residents are not comfortable with doing on line meetings. I believe if held in person the planning committee would see first hand what a negative impact this project will have on the residents of Santa Clarita. I have spoken to John Muscella and he was kind enough to send over a map, unfortunately the map has no street names and is very unclear. I work in a industry that i see CAD 's on a regular basis and after looking at what the city planning department sent via the mail, and what MR.Muscella sent everything is still unclear. I have compile a list of items of concerns / ideas that have been shared by other residents . Closure of Bouquet Canyon at Pam Court and Hob Court. This closure will affect traffic on Benz, Alaminos, David Way, Franwood, Canterwood, Robin, Kathleen and other streets as well. Major Traffic Concerns both for Bouquet Canyon, Copper Hill, Benz, David Way, Kathleen and Alaminos. This will be a night mare. One the local residents already went through with the round about at Benz and Alaminos. In the Meeting held in June that i was unable to attend due to graduation I was told that no data was available for impact on Copper Hill? How is that even possible. Schools. Already overcrowded and now we are going to build an additional 375 homes to add to the overcrowding . Development not in line with existing developments and it will change the local aesthetics. Water and Power don't have ability to sustain existing customer and are constantly wanting everyone to conserve and we continue to have blackouts. . Evacuation routes will be a major issue in the event of fire or earthquake Time for the City to buy some more land for open space. Overall traffic in Santa Clarita is terrible, we don't need to add an additional 800 to 1000 cars to the roads. Commuters that use Bouquet Canyon to get to work. If you would like to have a conversation i have included my phone number. Thank you Barbara Prindle 661-618-4088 Z0GSOKathleen Ave 5anta{]arita CA9139D 661-263-0041 June 14,2O2O City ofSanta Oahta Renee Berlin, Commissioner Planning Commission Z392OValencia B/Vd,Suite 3OO Santa Oarita,CAQ13S5 Dear Madam, I watched the last Planning Commission meeting remotely. I noticed your interest in proposed traffic patterns inrelation tothe Bouquet Canyon project. / want to express my concern relative tothe recommended pattern. The recommendation to limit left turns from Benz Rd onto Copper Hill Dr will funnel area residents onto Kathleen Ave. This will bring unsafe U-turns to the Kathleen and Copper Hill intersection. It will also limit the ability of those on the lower section ofKathleen Ave toexit their driveways during rush hour. |naddition, itwill limit evacuation options inthe case ofanemergency. I also believe there should be a second signal on Copper Hill Dr between Haskell Canyon and the end of Copper Hill Dr near David Way. If vehicles have a green light at Haskell Canyon, they will be traveling at speedsof6O-7Onoph,irrespmctivenftheposted|imitindooeproximnitytorasident'sproperty|ines.1t seems like safety should take priority over convenience forout-of-areacommuters. Also, I was under the impression that Wellston Dr was scheduled to extend through to Copper Hill Dr. Is this still under consideration? Thank you for your time, Linda Ricks Lj rSa L, jltto.; (1 0- (Mwv 15mIc'-111 (A J h 04" 15 C ky (55 '7 L p /u pze a ,t 4d /,J 04- X/a, (1)S4v,07ZV 'I /114,01-Utui d1nd b if k' Ay V-/ 11"i"s '14"Ll 1�4 Nl/ J alLe, Aov"- /1,0404- Y'144"r A) lkoy d b ty? V L 4 Z-/ c c I ,- An o 14 A-� (h. e, Id irl to 4,1 6AAL IT7 Or6 i-e-51 Ail i V h, u IJ hA dll I A) Aa (kob-ld ,,,Ja-/t fill h, jll� all', VII e,7 &IJI Please connpliete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coo nsidered Ipain of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Subject to be Addressed* 375 Unit Saugus development Your IIinforimation Cornirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Susan Maness Representing Self Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX Email smaness@pa(,,bell.net Street Address 28316 C ontessa Ave. City Santa Clarita (Saugus) Written comment: Please explain 'the 'following: 1. Who in the adjoining neighborhoods received prior written information about this project (I live across the road and know of nobody who got such contact). 2. Now does the proposed density of new homes remain consistent with your 1991 CID 14 "Protection of Neighborhood Identity" Coal of "protecting and preserving the ,scale and character of existing neighborhoods .... T and ensuing policies 1.1 'through 1.3 ? It does not reflect the character of single 'Family homes currently being built in Plum Canyon nor those existing homes surrounding the proposed project. 3. Bouquet Canyon is well known for ,severe 'traffic congestion 'funneling not only Bouquet, Plum and yeco Canyon residents 'to and from school, work, medical, shopping etc. locations, but also residents 'from Lancaster and Palmdale to above mentioned locations, as well as EM F y and First Responders. Now is the proposed project going to mitigate an additional 750 cars ('from the 375 homes) competing for current questionable road safety and adequate space? Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a 1o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connpliete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipain of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Subject to be Addressed* Bouquet canyon project Your Information Cornirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Tabitha Jennings Representing Saugus Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6616003204 Email tabithabrianne@yahoo.com Street Address 28222 shelter cove Dr City Saugus Written comment: To Whom it May Concern, am writing to plead with you not to build more homes up Bouquet Canyon Road to preserve the authenticity of Saugus! Fhis open space is important 'to'the people of Saugus! Also, we already have so much traffic utilizing Bouquet and this will add to this congestion, not to mention it will be hazardous Incase of emergency. i'' o one who lives in this area wants this development, and the people of Santa Clanta do not want more homes built here! Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIECILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UlEAND CO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir a s a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Cyn Development Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Laurel Taylor Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 818-378-5171 Email 1pt1438@aol.(,om Street Address 2S334 Mist C't city Saugus Written comment: am in opposition to the new development proposed along Bouquet Cyn. As a resident of this neighborhood can tell you 'that 'the straightening of Bouquest Cyn is not going to help the new Influx of 'traffic 'from 'this development. It is going to push more traffic Into our neighborhoods which already 'feel 'the effects of too many cars. Benz and Alaminos already have speed bumps which do nothing and all of the people pushing 'thru'from Copperhlll make it worse. Outside of the additional 750 - cars this will add to the daily traffic what about the stress on the already overcrowded schools? Kids are already Can waiting lists for some grades. Phis area of the cyn is already 'too squeezed and the effect the size of this development will have Can our neighborhoods which are already being pummeled by traffic] really 'think 'this is very short sighted of the planning commission to push Forward with this a't'this 'time without more real information being shared with our neighbors. I am all for responsible development but I believe this is going to have a very negative effect can our quality of life. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIEcILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UlEAND CO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` ,nee tee fi��eet Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir a s a Io1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Lisa Raigosa Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support uirmn,M- , E10 If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connpliete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coo nsidered Ipain of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Subject to be Addressed* Road configuration/traffic Your Information Cornirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* ,Jason Davenport Representing Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6615103083 Email jt(,davenport@gmail.(,om Street Address 28601 Bouquet Canyon Rd City Saugus Written comment: In regards to the Bouquet Canyon Project, I am extremely concerned about the proposed road configuration that appears to be constructed on the western portion of my property. Obviously this impacts me in a significant way. know 'that 'the applicant was strongly encouraged to reach out to the community as part of the planning commission's recommendations, and I have not been contacted or Informed of this road pro po sal at all. I only 'Found out about this proposal 'through my own efforts and research on 6/1/20. I have submitted a more detailed comment letter (attached below) in response 'to'the Draft EIR in which I raise additional questions and concerns. I hope my questions/concerns will be addressed and 'that someone 'from 'the City or the Applicant's team will respond. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. Comment le'tter.docx 42.491<13 II IDIECILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir a s a o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Group or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connpliete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipain of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Subject to be Addressed* Bouquet Canyon Project Your Information Cornirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Teri Crane Representing self Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6612522569 Email mgteri@yahoo.(,,c)m Street Address 20818 Benz Rd City Saugus Written comment: My concern is not with the ,scope of this project nor the 'fact of its existence, my concern most specifically is the part of the project that addresses 'the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. Noting the intention outlined in the project is to close Bouquet Canyon at Pam Court and Nob Court, I cringe. (hose drivers coming 'from 'the Borth will 'Funnel onto David Way and Copperhlll Drive. Fhls is a natural 'Flaw and does not go 'through a residential street. Where will the drivers coming youth go to continue their trip North? Yes, the way to get to Copperhlll and continue to David Way and back out to Bouquet will most likely be over Benz Road. Benz Road is a residential street with all houses 'facing 'to'the Road. Signs nor speed bumps deter the current travelers over 'this road which is already considered a ,short cut from Bouquet to Copperhlll. At one point Benz was a cul de ,sac and was opened to no doubt help with traffic flow. And with this project, Benz will be required not to help with 'traffic 'flow but to be the main 'traffic 'flow, or drivers will 'take it as such. Some drivers 'from 'the Borth may also use Benz as a short cut to Plum Canyon from Copperhlll. I am not certain if this is to be a 'temporary condition while the road is realigned, or a permanent ,solution 'that will upend a residential street. Yet not only this street, but other feeder streets. Can'terwood is a work around for many to bypass some speed bumps Can Benz (which have been worn down from years of use) to get to Copperhlll as is Franwood to Canter o od. Alamino,s is affected in this ,scenario as well. All are residential streets. fhere'fore, while I am not against the project per se, I also don't want to sacrifice having a public 'thoroughfare 'through my neighborhood where it doesn't belong for 'the homes to be built. I respectfully request 'that 'the Planning Commission consider other ways to interweave progress and stability and 'find another way to realign Bouquet Canyon Road without changing the lives of the residences of Benz Road and other roads nearby. Fhank you! Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUII® AND CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the CI'ty for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir a s a Io1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the CI'ty during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be Considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation pp Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas here 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* I support this project. Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Erin Hooper Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 949 -426 -0322 Email erinjhooper@gmail.com Street Address 24575 Town Center Drive ##2205 city Santa Claritta Written comment: am ,supportive of the new Bouquet Canyon community development project and the new homes it will bung to our community. Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®cII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®c'Tf„ Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir a s a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation pp Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Support Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Ivan Volschenk Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 323-326-6404 Email ivan@griffyns.(,om Street Address 24522 Windsor Drive Unit C , city Santa C larita Written comment:* Good evening... I support the Bouquet Canyon project. It's a good project that will bring our community much needed new housing and it safely realigns Bouquet Canyon Road. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. 11 DIE-CILAIRIEE THATT11-111E F011RIE-GO111MG ISTRUIEE AIMID COIR11RIEECT. Speaker Signature* PAI , W, (211A Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any task force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lRegisteir as a 4:W1b1bylst Iheire >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an individual communicating on behalf of a group or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an individual communicating on their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Dennis Sugasawara Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: Support uFray E1.. . If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` IWW 'tr Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation pp Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* I support this project. Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Pierce Monahan Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 661 -505-5318 Email piercemonahan@yahoo.com Street Address 27505 Midas Lane city Santa Clarita Written comment:* I am writing to support the Bouquet Canyon project in Saugus. It will bring much needed housing to the SCV and has been very well thought out. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. 11 II)II:--CII-AIIRII:--'TII-IA'T'Tll-lll:-- F0112IE-GO111MG ISTRUIEE AIMID COIR11RIEECT. Speaker Signature* Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any task force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lRegisteir as a 4:W1b1bylst Iheire >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an individual communicating on behalf of a group or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an individual communicating on their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Christine Keith Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support uirmn,M- , E10 If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Nathan Keith Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: Support uFray E1.. . If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iirng iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission Planning Commission Meeting Date` 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting o?p; Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation o,AAgenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description 37 -Unit Development in Saugus Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputeir audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` David R Goldstein Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Alen Warda Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: Support uFray E1.. . If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` .mac 7 W, No, e", Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Deeana Betsamo Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support uirmn,M- , E10 If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIII)II®CII_AII211®'TfIII 'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUII® AIMIDCO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir a s e 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Ninveh Mansour Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: In Favor of project Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* BOUQUEF CANYON PROJEC F (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions require that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Demiel Lachin Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: Support Bouquet Canyon Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iirng iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission Planning Commission Meeting Date` 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting o?p; Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation o,AAgenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description BOUO.UEf CANYON PROJEC f (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputeir audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iirng iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission Planning Commission Meeting Date` 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting o?p; Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation o,AAgenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Iheire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description BOUO.UEf CANYON PROJEC f (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputeir audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Troy Hooper Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` (t lrno„ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iirng iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission Planning Commission Meeting Date` 6/2/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting o?p; Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation o,AAgenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 3 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description BOUO.UEf CANYON PROJEC f (MASFER CASE 18.089) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputeir audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` MEMMIUM Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Hai Nguyen From: robyn dowd <cincinnatigirl.rd@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 1:56 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: BOUQUET CANYON MASTER CASE 18-089 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. My husband and I have lived in Saugus since 1981, off of Bouquet Canyon and Alamogordo. I worked for, and supported the citizens of Santa Clarita for over 22 years. I was a proud team member when our Planning Division/Planning Commission adopted the Oak Tree Ordinance, and the Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. I've always told my children that those are protected and should always be there. We have never put our "two cents worth" of an opinion in all these years but this proposed development is thoughtless. Anyone who has traveled along the Bouquet corridor, any day of the week, any time, will tell you that traffic has gotten worse through the years. Yes, we have added roads but only when housing increased so the new roads have never improved traffic. The water quality and air quality will suffer as will the lives of wildlife in the area. Yes, privately owned land will be developed but please make the impact minimal. Save that ridgeline. Robyn and Jim Dowd Sent from my iPad Hai Nguyen From: Clint Solomon <clint.solomon@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 8:53 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Proposed Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, I am very concerned about the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project. Traffic is already awful in this valley and this proposed project will only make itworse. Santa Clarita has been a wonderful place to live. However, it is becoming more and more congested. It is frustrating, to say the least, traveling throughout the city with numerous lights and worsening air quality. Developers are getting rich off of our city's land. Once a decision to build is made, it can't be undone. Developers build and then they move on to the next community. Those of us who plan on living here forever are not all opposed to development --it just needs to be done right. Homes will always be needed. However, if and when they do get built --they should fit within the parameters the city demands (protected ridgelines, preserving oak trees, etc.). This project has many flaws and needs a complete reworking. I would ask that the city not approve this project. More time is needed to evaluate the details in the DEIR. Please, for July 7th's meeting, at least continue the discussion to August 18th to allow more time to provide comments. Sincerely, Clint Solomon Saugus Resident Hai Nguyen From: Katherine Solomon <kpsquires@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 8:33 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Proposed Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments: July 7 Proposed Bouquet C. Project.doc OIYWNRIVNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, Please see the attached letter from the Sierra Club. It is for Tuesday night's Planning Commission Meeting (Agenda item #1). Thank you, Katherine Solomon To: City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners Subject: Public Hearing Agenda Item 1: PROPOSED BOUQUET CYN. PROJECT (Master Case 18-089) Request: Reschedule hearing to August 18, 2020 We wish to notify you that the Sierra Club stands in opposition to the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project. We were not made aware of this project until this holiday weekend, even though many of our conservation members have repeatedly asked to be added to notification lists for upcoming developments. Therefore, we request that you continue this item to your August 18 meeting at which time we will provide a more thorough response. Upon our brief review of the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project, we find numerous issues of concern to the Sierra Club. Locating a development in a floodplain and active channel of Bouquet Creek is just the beginning of our objections. We find the degradation of a riparian habitat and destruction of an aquifer recharge area to be particularly disturbing. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, biological alterations and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (17.51.040) are more items of serious concern. Removing 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline is outrageous and makes a mockery of the City Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. (The suggestion in the Executive Summary that it shouldn't be an issue because we have other significant ridgelines is not a reasonable justification.) The scale and scope of this project and the multiple impacts it will have, not only on the environment and surrounding neighborhoods, but also to the quality of life for the community puts us in opposition to this project. As this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. However, a minor reduction is not enough to offset the environmental damage and safety threats posed by this project. We have many concerns that still need to be examined more closely in order for us to provide you with a thorough comment letter. Among environmental organizations, we see that only the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has commented at this time. It is critical that local groups and community members have additional time to comment on this proposed project. Under the current Covid-19 conditions, we believe our request for continuation of this hearing to August 18 is warranted. A valid process includes testimony from the Sierra Club, other organizations, and members of the public. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Katherine Solomon and Roger Haring Conservation Chairs, Santa Clarita Sierra Club Group I am writing in connection with the 375 home Bouquet Canyon Project. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I have lived in that canyon for 30 years. I wish to voice my strong objection to the development of houses in this location. This proposed housing development will include extensively altering the existing landscape and topography. Two million cubic yards of earthwork would be required. The ridgeline would be significantly altered. In other words, all the mountains will be torn down. A section of Bouquet Creek would need to be channelized. Bouquet Canyon has a natural stream and a lot of wildlife would be affected. 27 protected oak trees would be removed. This is destroying precious oak trees. This does not support our vision of our city. We are taking a beautiful wilderness area and decimating it. This has already been done all the way across Plum Canyon with new houses and shopping centers. This development would significantly increase traffic. There is already way too many cars on Bouquet Canyon. It is used by commuters coming from Palmdale. It is used by commuters going into the San Fernando Valley and beyond. Bouquet Canyon is already a nightmare during the morning rush hour. This development would just increase the problems. Additionally, a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road between Pam Court and Hob Court would close and construction would change the alignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. This would be a traffic nightmare when it is under construction. This would also cause a loss of privacy to surrounding properties and a loss in value to these neighboring properties. I am strongly against building any more housing units in the Santa Clarita Valley, especially in this rural area. Santa Clarita is overdeveloped and the roads, local population, and infrastructure cannot handle any more development. Plum Canyon already has thousands more homes. It will put more stress on our traffic and water resources and take away our beautiful mountains. Please do not approve this project. Donald and Joyce Woodmansee 28750 Kathleen Avenue Santa Clarita, CA 91390 661-713-1117 Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 7/7/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas here 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Questions' for'the Co unci I members Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Danielle Shriver Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 8189411484 Email DanielleMShriver@gmail.(,om Street Address 28155 seco Canyon rd unit 68 city san'ta clari'ta Written comment: am writing to ask two questions before submitting a recommendation to ,support or oppose this new development: 1. Now much of this project will be contributed as affordable housing? I am concerned about pacing out low and middle income 'families during a pandemic; where half of the United States is unemployed. 2. Which of you will directly benefit 'from 'this housing project and can you estimate how much you plan to Cain from this housing development? DMS Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIEcILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UlEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a Io1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 7/7/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Joyce Woodmansee Representing Homeowner Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6617131117 Email djwoodm@hotmail.com Street Address 28750 Kathleen Avenue city Santa Claritta Written comment: I .strongly oppose this development. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. Bouquet Housing Projec,t.do(,x II II)II:--CII-AIIRII:--'TII-IA'T'Tll-lll:-- F011RIE-GO111MG IS'TfRUll®AIIMIDCOIR11RIEECTf„ Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst Ilhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. |arnwriting inconnection with the 375home Bouquet Canyon Project. |haveexarninedthe plans and | know the site vve||. | have lived in that canyon for 30 years. | wish to voice my strong objection tothe development ofhouses inthis location. This proposed housing development will include extensively altering the existing landscape and topography. Two million cubic yards ofearthwork would be required. The hdgdine would be significantly altered. In other words, all the mountains will be torn down. A section of Bouquet Creek would need to be channelized. Bouquet Canyon has a natural stream and a lot of wildlife would be effected. 27 protected oak trees would be removed. This is destroying precious oak trees. This does not support our vision of our city. We are taking a beautiful wilderness area and decimating it. This has already been done all the way across Plum Canyon with new houses and shopping centers. This development would significantly increase traffic. There is already way too many cars on Bouquet Canyon. It is used by commuters coming from Pe|nnde|e. It is used by commuters going into the San Fernando Valley and beyond. Bouquet Canyon is already e nightmare during the morning rush hour. This development would just increase the problems. Additionally, e portion ofBouquet Canyon Road between Pam Court and Hob Court would dose and construction would change the alignment ofBouquet Canyon Road. This would be etreffic nightmare when it is under construction. This would also cause a loss ofprivacy to surrounding properties and a loss in value to these neighboring properties. I am strongly against building any more housing units in the Santa Clarita Valley,especially in this rural area. Santa Clarita is overdeveloped and the roads, local population, and infrastructure cannot handle any more development. Plum Canyon already has thousands more homes. It will put more stress on our traffic and water resources and take away our beautiful mountains. Please donot approve this project. Donald and Joyce VVoodnnensee 2875OKathleen Avenue Santa C|ehte,CA9139O 661'713'1117 Ilt you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iirng iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 717/202 } Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting pA, Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation pp; Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Public; comment From resident Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` immmoim Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. Bouquet Canyon Development Proposal Q.uestions.docx 14.09KB IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sal flta cllalriitia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commission Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, Commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir as a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. 7/7/2020 To: City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission From: Keith Jacobs Santa Clarita Resident RE: Bouquet Canyon Development Proposal Questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. I have several questions and comments, which I will summarize now and submit in bullet point format along with some supporting documents. Was the Initial public hearing not rescheduled? City was under Curfew order at the posted time. Traffic impact: Bouquet has become heavily traveled commuter corridor. Regarding the Bouquet Canyon Reservoir inundation area / Flood Area; The Proposed development is within the "Special Flood Hazard Area High Risk Zone" identified in the One Valley One Vision EIR and the City of Santa Clarita Flood Insurance Rate Map. (attached) will this information be disclosed to potential homebuyers and will the qualify for flood insurance? Will flood insurance be a pre -requisite for home loans? Will the project impact the Bouquet Canyon Creek Restoration? Could that further exaservbate roadway flooding upstream? How will proposed project impact and the intended increased releases from Bouquet Reservoir and resultant recharge of local private water wells? More info here: https://dpw,lacount�r,�ov/wrd/Projects/BouguetCanYonCreek/ Geology, surrounding developments are on different soil than the sedimentary valley of Bouquet Creek. Will proposed project be subject to additional seismic reinforcements? Will project buildings qualify for earthquake insurance under the California Earthquake Authority? Proposed project is within the City of Santa Clarita Fire Zone. (map attached). Will Wildfire Hazard and Fire Zone Designation be disclosed to potential home buyers? What is the impact on ability to secure homeowner's insurance? State Insurance Commissioner moratorium on cancelations/non-renewal does not apply to new construction within a Fire Zone. Proposed Development is within the Groundwater Basin identified in One Valley Vision EIR as required for groundwater recharge and identified for "low impact development" "green infrastructure" and "zero runoff" Specifically; does the proposed development meet the City Floodplain Management Ordinance? Water supply: Has developer secured sufficient water supplies for the scope of the project? Do those plans account for any potential impact of "Removal From Service" of local wells due to Perchlorate and PFAS contamination? (fact sheet attached) https://Yourscvwater,com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2017-Santa-Clarita-Valley- ater-Report.pdf I hope these questions and any others brought by the community can be resolved before any recommendation regarding the proposed project is made to the Council. As it stands, I appose this project. Thank you, Keith Jacobs Hai Nguyen From: DiananShaw <dianashawhouse@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 2:23 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Attn: ASSOCIATE PLANNER,CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Y`II If Y WNf"IITIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I live in Saugus, near Bouquet Canyon Rd (and Saugus High School), and I am concerned about plans for a development up Bouquet Canyon Rd. I use Bouquet Canyon Rd. and it is already way too crowded. Please don't allow the builder to change the ridge line destroying another piece of our valley's natural beauty. People in our area need to know that our leaders care for the area's natural gifts. Finally, the creek is really important not only to the beauty of the area, but as a natural solution to storm water capture. Changing it will ultimately cost taxpayers money. Thank you, Diana Shaw 21832 Grovepark Dr. Santa Clarita, CA 91350 661.645.0231 Hai Nguyen From: Barbara Prindle <ptprindle@att.net> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:38 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Greetings, Please share this email with the planning commission prior to the meeting on August 18th I have been researching the Bouquet Canyon Project. After speaking with Hai Nguyen Associate Planner and Ian Pari Traffic, I have quite a few concerns that I would like to address and others re -address. My biggest concern is you will no longer be able to turn left onto Copperhill from Benz. This is going to create an abundance of traffic on Alaminos and Kathleen. As a longtime resident I went through the Benz nightmare and I believe this will be an even bigger problem. It was interesting that this isn't even mentioned in the letter of Notice of Public Hearing. Had I not spoken with the planner and traffic department I would have had no idea. It appears the builder was not required to do a water impact study based on reduction of homes being built from over 500 to 375. Coincidence? So Cal Edison doesn't have the ability to sustain existing customer and doing rotating blackouts and charges for over usage. How are they going to accommodate additional housing? And what impact does it have on existing homes. The California Data Report says the average vehicles per house are two. So 375 new homes will create approximately 750 additional vehicles on the road to an already congested neighborhood. On August V the Elsmere Fire began near the northbound 14 fwy and Newhall Ave. Not even that close to the Saugus homes, but based on the fire event it took me 36 minutes to travel 3 miles from Sam's Club to Alaminos / Benz. What if this was an evacuation!! Evacuations would already be difficult today but if we add an additional 750 vehicle's, is building more homes more important than the safety of the existing homes and lives. I look froward to the meeting on August 18th and am hoping the commission takes the existing residence concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Barbara Prindle 661-618-4088 ptprindle@att.net Hai Nguyen From: Helene <helenemcelmurray@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 5:41 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. As a 28 year resident of Santa Clarita, living on shadow Valley Lane I have experienced evacuation multiple times and it was a nightmare. The narrowness of the canyon as you go up the road does not accommodate fast evacuation for animals and people. Even with a plan to widen bouquet Canyon this is not sufficient. I strongly object to this development this is just not the right area to put that many houses in when we already have such fire risk here. There are many other areas that are more wide open and accommodating for this many homes, Bouquet Canyon is not one of them. Helene McElmurray Sent from my iPhone Hai Nguyen From: John Klausmeier <jpklaus03@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 2:26 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet canyon project `II If X If"III NGI This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello my name is John and live on Benz road. I support the plans to make benz a no left turn only. This might lower the constant traffic on my street and deter drivers from flying through the stop signs and bumps to get to copper hill. I have two young children and I'm all for anything to make my street safer. Thanks! Sent from myMail for iOS Hai Nguyen From: Deeana Betsamo <deeanabetsamo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:18 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WIf"NIIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, Deeana Betsamo 26887 Las Mananitas Dr Valencia, CA 91354 Hai Nguyen From: Elizabeth Delgado <liz_del@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:23 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project - Support Letter `II If X If"NIIIIN: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, As a resident of the city of Santa Clarita, please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. I urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. Thank you, Liz Seelman 26175 Montolla Lane, Valencia, CA Hai Nguyen From: John Vance <John.Vance@VanceWealth.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:23 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X V N/ flIT N&I This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. l urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, John Vance urr( �!VANCE WEALTM John Vance President, Vance Wealth CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER TM CA Insurance License #OC42311 661.430.0963 (direct) 661.775.0956 (Fax) 888.775.0950 (toll free) VanceWealth.com 26491 Summit Circle Santa Clarita, CA 91350 John.Vance@VanceWealth.com To help our clients and families succeed at every step of their financial journey. Inspiring them to achieve more. Being by their side to help make the difficult decisions, celebrate life's joys and be a trusted partner every moment in between. Investment Advisory Services offered through Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc. Vance Wealth is not a registered broker/dealer and is independent of Raymond James Financial Services. Securities offered through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. member FINRA/SIPC Please visit Ih,Q&,p ; W,n ,nr,n,irk,y,irm ,in,f„u ,irmg, ,irmi ll,e all d1isclk)SLures/s(:)ciiall irmeda c iiscl4irmeir iicd for Additional Risk and Disclosure Information. Raymond James does not accept private client orders or account instructions by email. This email: (a) is not an official transaction confirmation or account statement; (b) is not an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to transact in any security; (c) is intended only for the addressee; and (d) may not be retransmitted to, or used by, any other party. This email may contain confidential or privileged information; please delete immediately if you are not the intended recipient. Raymond James monitors emails and may be required by law or regulation to disclose emails to third parties. Investment products are: Not deposits. Not FDIC or NCUA insured. Not guaranteed by the financial institution. Subject to risk. May lose value. This may constitute a commercial email message under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. If you do not wish to receive marketing or advertising related email messages from us, please reply to this message with "unsubscribe" in your response. You will continue to receive emails from us related to servicing your account(s). Hai Nguyen From: Alen Warda <alenwarda2087@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:40 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WA/ I IIVIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Hart: I ask for the City's Planning Commission's full support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. For the past couple of years, the developer has been working with the neighboring residents, conducting open houses and personal meetings, to receive feedback on what they envision to be the right development for the area. They have then taken all comments into consideration and constantly updating their plans to best fit the neighbor's needs. Having decreased the unit count and reducing the unit stories from three to two, the proposed plan maps out a thought -well development for the Saugus community. Furthermore, Bouquet Canyon Road currently is a long, curvy road. The proposed plan will reconfigure the road to allow for easy access, not just for the new development, but for the existing neighbors around the development, to smooth travel through a more direct route.Lastly, the proposed development will bring two recreational areas, trails, park space and trailhead parking. Not only will the residents have access to the trails, but there will also be public trails for residents throughout Santa Clarita to access. This project must be fully supported and approved. The Bouquet Canyon project is the smart development our City must quickly approve. This is the type of planning we need. Thank you, Alen Warda 22040 Crestline TRL Saugus, CA 91390 Hai Nguyen From: Eli Bronwein <ebronwein@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:28 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Re: Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X If"NIIIIM: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, The Bouquet Canyon Project would create significant traffic, air pollution, a potential water shortage, and damage to a sensitive ecosystem. In addition, it is in an area that would be prone to wildfires, putting residents and property in peril. Therefore, I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. I do not want 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately or at all in this Draft EIR. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is very concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to not approve this project. Sincerely, Elliot Bronwein 19933 Avenue Of The Oaks Newhall, CA 91321 Hai Nguyen From: Glenda Perl <glenda.perl54@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:38 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X If"NIIIIN: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. August 13, 2020 To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: I am a 30+ year resident of the Santa Clarita Valley. When I first moved here from the San Fernando Valley, there was open space all around! The air was crisp and clear. Over the years, I've watched the SCV population explode into a sprawling micro -Los Angeles. We do not have the resources to support the influx of more and more people! It's that simple! More cars, more traffic, higher pollution levels, a drain on the already strained water supply. Equally important is the continuous destruction of natural animal habitats (but that's a complaint for another day!). I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. We do not need another 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious storm water runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately, or at all, in this Draft EIR. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is very concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to not approve this project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Glenda Perl 18033 Sundowner Way, #629 Santa Clarita, CA 91387 661-373-2783 gienda. eri54 a),grnail.co�n Hai Nguyen From: Diana Kado <dianamkado@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 1:08 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X If"NIIIIM: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. I do not want 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately or at all in this Draft EIR. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is very concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to not approve this project. Sincerely, Diana Kado 24126 Tango Drive Valencia, CA 91354 Hai Nguyen From: Lindsay Schlick <Lndsay@schlickart.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 1:30 PM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: Brian Schlick Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Hart and Members of the Planning Commission: 1 am writing in full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a long-time resident of the City and neighbor to the area, 1 feel this development brings the necessary road improvements and additional housing our area desires. As you know, the improvements to Bouquet Canyon Road will allow easier access to the new community and for residents to get through. Furthermore, new Bouquet Canyon Road will alleviate traffic for the existing residents and open up new access for them to enter the main road. Lastly, the reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road follows the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan. Overall, it will allow for a more direct route compared to the existing curve. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. As stated earlier, the developer has worked well with the neighbors and been fully transparent throughout the planning stages. They have taken all comments into consideration and were constantly updating the project to best fit the areas need. 1 feel the updated project falls in line with our City's vision for a smart and sustainable development. 1 ask for your full support and allow the developer to move to the next stage to get this project complete. Sincerely, Lindsay & Brian Schlick & Team SchlickArt! .5 c 12 11 &.k.,A 24907 Ave Tibbits Unit C Valencia CA 91355 Tel (Lindsay) 661313 3907 Tel: (Brian) : 661309 5326 .1 i t] d..s..a.y Li,__ bria.0 soji c..k .. ..... ....... .... . ........ .. ...... ....... ... ...... Hai Nguyen From: Forrest, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Forrest@canyons.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 2:06 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Letter of Support for Bouquet Canyon Attachments: Bouquet Canyon Project.pdf `II If X WIf"IITIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hai, I hope that all is well for you and everyone at the City of Santa Clarita. Please find attached a letter requesting approval of the Bouquet Canyon Project. Best, VP, Economic and Workforce Development College of the Canyons 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661) 362-3144 office (314) 341-3856 mobile August 13, 2020 TO: City of Santa Clarita RE: Request to approve the Bouquet Canyon Project Dear Chair Hart and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing in full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a long-time resident of the City and neighbor to the area, I feel this development brings the necessary road improvements and additional housing our area desires. As you know, the improvements to Bouquet Canyon Road will allow easier access to the new community and for residents to get through. Furthermore, new Bouquet Canyon Road will alleviate traffic for the existing residents and open up new access for them to enter the main road. Lastly, the reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road follows the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan. Overall, it will allow for a more direct route compared to the existing curve. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. As stated earlier, the developer has worked well with the neighbors and been fully transparent throughout the planning stages. They have taken all comments into consideration and were constantly updating the project to best fit the areas need. I feel the updated project falls in line with our City's vision for a smart and sustainable development. I ask for your full support and allow the developer to move to the next stage to get this project complete. Sincerely, Jeffrey Forrest 24595 Town Center Drive, #3302 Valencia, CA 91355 Hai Nguyen From: Cristina Ropp <happybaker@theropps.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 2:34 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Opposition to Bouquet Canyon Development `CJIYWNRNHMGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. I do not want 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City - designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately or at all in this Draft EIR. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is very concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to NOT approve this project. Sincerely, Cristina Ropp 25437 Via Impreso Valencia, CA 91355 Hai Nguyen From: Pam Ingram <pamingram@pamingram.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 2:49 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X Walf"NIIN&� This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. l urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, C : 61.2 1.1 2 661.312.4,428 p m,ingram@p mingr rn.corn wwwpa rningram.c am 2512S"I'h (Id Road M4,Saanii Cbrla C',Aaa138' Hai Nguyen From: Henry Rodriguez <henry.rodriguez.ud4n@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 4:24 PM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: Peter Warda (TMG) Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WII"NIIN&� This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. l urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, I ienry Rost u°li g uez. Agency Owner at Henry Rodriguez State Farm A 15975 Soledad Canyon Rd, Santa Clarita, CA 13 661-250-4592 661-916- 1162 If::: HenryCa?�`ourSFteam.net .SCVlnsurance.net OfficeMirgiagar (,()Irora A . Office 1Mirgr I',@rir�a sote�o Acco u in t M ri g 1- 0 s As hi l e y strada Account Mirgir Sales Jeri Magda�ero Agency [:xeAsst Soi @ Lq;aez 0000 Our Agency Purpose: To deliver a Remarkable client experience day in and day out! o...0 r� .r.e atback i s.� M u c h. 1p J219K.i. Hai Nguyen From: Carlos Navarro <carlosnavarro3856@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:51 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: BOUQUET CANYON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To: The Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. I do not want 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City -designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately or at all in this Draft EIR. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is very concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to not approve this project. Sincerely, Carlos & Cristina Navarro 23249 Sorrel CT. Valencia CA 91354 Hai Nguyen From: Katherine Solomon <kpsquires@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 11:10 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Santa Clarita Sierra Club Group's Comments for Planning Commissioners Attachments: Final Comment Letter for Bouquet Cyn. Proposed Project.doc `II If X WA/ I IIVIING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. ATTN: Hai Nguyen Honorable Commissioners: Mr. Hart, Mr. Masnada, Ms. Berlin, Dr. Ostrom, and Ms. Eichman, I have attached the Santa Clarita Sierra Club Group's official comment letter for your Aug. 18, 2020 meeting. It is regarding the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project (Master Case 18-089). Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mrs. Katherine Solomon and Mr. Roger A. Haring Co -Conservation Chairs of the Santa Clarita Sierra Club Group 3250 Wilshire Boulevard ' F�A(213) 387-4287 phone �� Suite 1106 E R www.sierraclub.org Los Angeles, CA 90010 114b 11 °IP11),I11 August 4, 2020 PROPOSED BOUQUET CYN. PROJECT (Master Case 18-089) COMMENTS Upon review of the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project, there are numerous issues of concern to the Sierra Club. We find the proposed destruction of a critical aquifer recharge zone and groundwater dependent ecosystem to be particularly disturbing. The applicant is suggesting to eliminate over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a city -designated Significant Ridgeline which flies in the face of our essential Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Additionally, they propose filling -in the riparian habitat. Ultimately, the loss of 27 oak trees, degradation of a unique riparian habitat, the threat of intensive wildfires, the increased traffic, and the serious impacts on air quality all point to the fact that this development project is flawed. In overview, the scale and scope of this project, and the multiple impacts this project will have on the region, will only degrade the natural environment and negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods both in the short and long-term. As this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size, but the number of homes reduced are only by a few blocks. The Sierra Club of the Santa Clarita Valley does not see that this is a viable project as planned, instead we would ask that you vote to deny the project. The community is in opposition to this project! • water: The hydrological evaluation in the DEIR is concerned with managing runoff, not sustainability and water/stormwater capture. The groundwater in this particular site exists at depths of 40 feet or less below the surface. It is easy to see that this area is an extremely important recharge zone for the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley due to the high water -table on site. In fact, Bouquet Creek, which runs through the property was previously deemed a high -target site by the City of Santa Clarita for Arundo donax abatement in order to conserve the precious water that percolates into the ground. This site has a unique hillside topography, with a wide floodplain, and high-water table. The Integrated Regional Water Management Program supported an Implementation Grant Proposal to control and abate the invasive weeds within the project site in order to enhance recharge capabilities and reduce fire hazards. Losing a critical recharge site for East Sub -Basin within the Santa Clarita Valley would be a significant loss of groundwater and recharge for the upper Santa Clara River Watershed. The Draft EIR demands channelization of the Bouquet Canyon Creek which can have serious ramifications on downstream infrastructure and residents. This site currently acts as an important floodplain zone helping to prevent flooding of nearby homes during significant rain storm events. Should this riparian habitat be channelized, the potential for Sierra Club comments2 intense flooding would be directed to those downstream. The Draft EIR actually states that this proposed project would "eliminate much of the actual floodplain." The DEIR evaluation is consistent in its view that the Santa Clara River and its tributaries are "drainage." While the DEIR alludes to flooding in both Placerita and Sand Canyons, there is no mention of flooding in Bouquet Canyon, which has been a recurring event over numerous decades; most recently the 2008 Buckweed Fire. This is a FEMA flood zone (zone A) and an LA COUNTY FCD floodway and flood plain, with a shallow water table. This evaluation does not include the fact that the total amount of water to be contractually released by LADWP has not been released over the last decade. This has caused the groundwater to be much deeper than in the previous decades. With the ongoing restoration of upper Bouquet Canyon Watershed it will return water flow to its full release rate (cfs/season). Per the EIR: "The project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with Groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin." How can this be stated? The EIR hydrology does NOT evaluate the amount of recharge of this vital tributary of the Santa Clara River, either at current creek flows or at contractual full flows. Channelizing this creek would prevent water recharge, and/or accelerate the loss of water capture. Preserving the natural Bouquet Canyon Creek is critical to reduce the ever-present dangers of flooding downstream. The City of Santa Clarita must protect its residents, the endemic habitat, and the water supply. The main way to protect the residents of the valley is to recharge the Upper Santa Clarita River Valley in order to provide a secure local water source. At the very least, the creek needs to be allowed to perform its two main natural ecological services: 1. Stormwater Capture and Recharge, and 2. Alluvial Water Purification and Storage. To offset encroachment on the watershed from increases in building and development, a naturalized stabilization must be allowed to develop at the existing width and depth of the riparian habitat and stream channel. This is the only wat to ensure maximum recharge capabilities are preserved. Hence, protecting the entire 100-year floodplain as it is on this project site is the most optimal outcome. However, if this project were to be approved, a tremendous amount of water would be permanently lost. In turn, this subsequent loss of groundwater recharge, would directly affect the East Sub -basin. This outcome is simply unacceptable. As per the recent SCV Groundwater Sustainability Agency Workshop 42 (August 5, 2020), when asked about the impact of the Bouquet Reservoir flows, one of the presenters stated that they were included in the model inflow numbers and the water budget! It makes no sense and is a danger to have Santa Clarita Valley residents pay more than any other city to "preserve water," while at the same time permitting development that do the exact opposite of conserving water through natural ecological services that our same watersheds and tributaries provide. Therefore the Sierra Club questions how the City of Santa Clarita can charge taxes (city and/or county fees) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff, but then at the same time allow certain proposed developments to destroy critical water recharge zones in our valley? Sierra Club comments3 • Biolou/Biodiymity: Careful consideration must be made to protect the significant quantity of endemic species, knowing they too provide ecological services to the Bouquet Canyon watershed. The Bouquet Canyon Creek supports an exceptional amount of biological diversity for the Santa Clara River Valley. It is a unique tributary to the Upper Santa Clara River, and has been capturing precipitation and storm water, channelizing and absorbing groundwater, and sustaining an alluvial aquifer of the Eastern Sub -Basin for centuries. The Bouquet Canyon Watershed (46,592 total acres), is endowed with numerous unique topographical features, specialized hydrologic soil groups, and a diversity of endemic flora and fauna populations. This particular watershed is a unique ecological service for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. The ecological services and attributes provided included: 1. Water Capture and Storage; 2. Habitat Formation and Complexity; and 3. Reproduction ofEndemic Native Wildlife. Ultimately, the Bouquet Canyon Watershed is a biological reserve of diverse flora and fauna that seeds and supports the entire Upper Santa Clara River Valley. In the DEIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project a survey was performed to determine the endemic species associated with the watershed and proposed project site. Under the DEIR: 3.3 Biological Resources, a potential of forty-five species were found: "A total of 45 animal species were identified on the project site, including I reptile species, 40 bird species, and 4 mammal species... According to the literature review conducted as part of the Biological Technical Report, a total of 15 sensitive animal species were recorded within the Mint Canyon (JSGS quadrangle. Of these species, only 10 have the potential of occurring on the project site due to species range and available habitat. Of these species, only 4 were determined to have a high potential to occur on the project site based on the presence ofsuitable habitat and recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the project site: the coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, loggerhead shrike, and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit... Focused surveys were conducted for the burrowing owl and coastal California gnatchatcher; however, neither of these animals were found to occur on the project site. " It should be of immense interest, however, to know that this property site has been more thoroughly surveyed over various seasons (Winter, Spring, Summer) within the last decade. The alluvial flood plain, the stream channel, and riparian habitat have been to known to support a far greater diversity ofwildlife than what is being currently reported. Between 2012-2014 various endemic flora and fauna population were detected and reported on the property site and upstream neighboring county properties by various state agencies, and local private consulting companies. Previous Biological Surveys (2012-2014) in the Bouquet Canyon Watershed In contrast to the most recent survey reported in the DEIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Lancaster Field Office) conducted a pre -work survey along a 3.5 mile stretch of riparian corridor of the Bouquet Canyon Creek in October 2012. The purpose of the survey was to determine the "presence or absence" of sensitive animal and plant species within the project area, and to develop Sierra Club comments4 mitigation strategies, (avoidance or buffers), for an invasive weed management project taking place in the watershed. A list of the Sensitive Animals and Plants were reviewed and compiled from the literature (CEMi 2011, CNDBB' 2012): Bird Species Bell's Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza Belli) Southern Califonria fuous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial brewsteri) Yellow -breasted chat (Icteria vixens) Horned lark (Eremophila alpesttris) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila caflifornica) Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Plant Species California black walnut (Juglans californica) San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. Fernandina) Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii) Rayless ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) Caliiornia Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) Slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalus) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) Giant wildrye (Elymus condensatus) Coyote melon (Cucurbita foetidissima) Broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) Fourwing saltbush (Aytiplex canescens) Reptile Species Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) Coastal western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris) San Diego horned lizard (Phyranosoa coronatum) Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) Tow -striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii) Mammal Species San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus deserticola) American badger (Taxidea taxus) Amphibian and Fish Species Red -legged frog (Rana aurora) Unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus willaimsoni) Sierra Club comments5 CEM': Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc. Pre -work special -status species survey 2011, Bouquet Canyon CNDBB': California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, CADFW, 2012 The NRCS sensitive species survey (Fall 2012) found a potential total of forty-one species, of which: Sixteen were bird species, fifteen were plant species, five were reptiles, three were mammals, one was an amphibian, and one was a fish. It should be noted that the NRCS survey appears to find a lesser total quantity of potential endemic species (41) within Bouquet Canyon watershed then currently assessed by the DEIR for the Bouquet Canyon Project. However, what is important to note is that the NRCS survey seems to find a greater diversity of flora and fauna species. Most of those species surveyed within the riparian habitat of this portion of the watershed were plants: Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), tree and shrub willow (Salix app.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate), coast sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Erigonum fasciculatum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). While, no special -status plant species were observed on the project site, Nevin's barberry and California black walnut are found in the mid -reach of the Bouquet Canyon Watershed, just upstream of the property. Wildlife observed included: cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American Kestrel (Falco sprverius) and lizards (unknown). The CDFW also performed a pre -work field -survey approximately six months prior (April 2012) to the NRCS Survey, and found the presence of actual "woodrat middens" within the riparian habitat on the actual proposed project site. There are two woodrat species that can be found in a habitat range of southern California that runs through Los Angeles County, including: San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), and the Dusky -Footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). According to the CDFW's literature review, these species from the Neotoma sp. group have the potential to be found in the Santa Clarita Valley area, and this is supported by range maps and habitat -formation in southern California (Patton, et al., 2008). A more recent study conducted on the endemic woodrat species in southern California found a similar distribution range, and even a potential "hybridization zone" north of Los Angeles county; indicating an endemic woodrat species may exist in the Santa Clarita Valley (Shurtliff, et.al. 2013). A much more diverse species of flora and fauna has been historically surveyed and reported on the proposed project site, as well as upstream habitats of neighboring properties in unincorporated LA County. Of interest is the discovery of larger wild mammal populations which have been sited and photographed, including: Woodrat (Neotoma sp.), (Coyote (Canis latrans), Kit Fox (Vulpes velox), Bobcat (Lynx rufus), further indicating a more complex wildlife ecology has evolved in this region of the Bouquet Canyon Watershed. Photo 1: Woodrat midden found under the Mexican Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), located on the proposed project site (Spring 2012). Note the floral display of Sambucus mexicana, it eventually gives rise to berries, and serves as a food source to wildlife in the riparian habitat of the Bouquet Canyon Watershed. Sierra Club comments6 Photograph: Olympus Camera F-slop f/3 / Exposure: 1/500s / 961pi / March 30, 2012 - R.A. Haring • Oak Trees: It szoes on to reveal that oaks are "indicator species for the natural communities in which they exist, supporting a broad spectrum of other native plant and animal species." Oak tree removal is another serious concern. The DEIR states that the oak trees "on the site are in average or poor condition and/or have limited aesthetic value due to the lack of public views of the trees." The applicant would be required to replace the 27 oak trees to be removed by the project with 91 oak trees (or the equivalent monetary value) pursuant to the City's oak tree permit standards. Therefore, the report concludes that the proposed project "would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation." The Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance cites the need to protect indigenous oaks tree for "their significant historical, aesthetic and environment value." Nowhere in the ordinance do we find the defense of oak tree removal based on their immediate visibility to the public. In fact, the ordinance identifies the "detrimental effect on general health, safety and welfare of citizens of Santa Clarita" with the "uncontrolled and indiscriminate destruction" of oaks. Removing 27 oak trees because people cannot easily see them is not Sierra Club comments7 acceptable and the mitigations suggested do not even come close to making right the biologic loss that the area would incur due to development. • Significant Ridteline: Removal of 2 million cubic yards of ridgeline/habitat would negatively _ impact wildlife by destroying portions of an irreplaceable eco-region. The city's Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone is intended to preserve ridgelines to maintain "unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity" for public benefit." This project presents no overriding benefit to the community that justifies this destruction. • Geology: State Geologists have mailed this area and have repeatedly reported on the geologic concerns. The Geology and Soil section of the Draft EIR is surprisingly general in its comments. That may be because if one researches this area, the information found is very disturbing. The site is prone to liquefaction, lateral spreading, and landslides. In fact, part of the project is in a designated Liquifaction Hazard Zone. Part of the project is also in a designated Seismic -Induced Landslide Hazard Zone. These facts can be found in observing Dibblee map, 1996, 457 Dibblee Foundation, Mint Canyon Quadrangle. It is common knowledge that this is project site is a very unstable and risky area to develop based on geology and engineering studies. In Larson's Engineering and Geology Handbook, this project site is said to contain deep -water mud and thus is a very slippery and silty soil to use for residential or commercial build -out. One might argue that by removing 2 million cubic yards of soil, the threat of landslides will be mitigated. However, faults run close by this area and the potential for devastation due to a seismic event is real. Putting fill -dirt onto this site is very dangerous, especially when combined with the high water -table. The Santa Clarita Building Code, as the Draft EIR states is the one -and -only plan for alleviating soil stabilization problems, but will it stop nature's powerful forces? The proposed project site is a dangerous place to construct anything, other than a park. The Sierra Club, therefore asks that the property zoning be reconsidered; perhaps designating this site for open space/water recharge purposes only. One final concern with the geology discussion of the Draft EIR is the request for the need of a Vertebrate Paleontologist to assist with collecting important fossils found at the site (if the proposed project is approved). Seeing as how the area was underwater during the time the geologic beds were set, one wonders why an Invertebrate Paleontologist is not being required. An Invertebrate Paleontologist is the expert required on site because that is the most prominent type of fossil found in this area. When a DEIR contains mistakes this obvious in research/background portions of the DEIR, it truly casts doubt over the entire document! Sierra Club comments8 • Fire Hazard: The DEIR states that the, "entire project site and surrounding lands [that] have been designated by CALFIRE (are) a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone." People utilizing the proposed development will increase the traffic on a narrow and already congested Bouquet Canyon Road. Higher concentration of traffic on this rural roadway is a major concern, especially during times of natural disasters (fires and flooding) when evacuation routes are necessary, but limited. The proposed development site is in a high -risk Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and in such areas, those residents will be without adequate ingress/egress if a natural disaster event should take place, potentially causing a life -threatening traffic jam for residents. The applicant stated that in a "hypothetical worst -case scenario" there would be severely congested conditions and a serious constraint to evacuating motorists in the event of a fire. There have been records of 51 wildfires within a 3-mile radius of this project site since 1960 with large fires occurring approximately every 10 years. The DEIR states that, "building a community of 375 new homes in a VHFHSZ would substantially increase the number of homes and local residents who could be affected during a wildfire event in this area, and would add to the scale and complexity of emergency response and evacuation procedures that could be required if circumstances are severe enough." The Draft EIR actually states that by replacing the brush on the site with people and homes the "project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not create conditions that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire." The idea that the wildfire risk would be addressed by the fact that the development will reduce the fuel, by getting rid of the native vegetation, is truly shocking. How does this make sense? It all contradicts the applicant's own DEIR research on the wildfire risks of this proposed development. Projects such as this will cost enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars in order to fight future wildfires. Project approvals in Fire Hazard Severity Zones should require, at the least, additional mitigation funding for fire -fighting so that this burden is not placed on tax payers at a later date. • Traffic/Air Quality: The Draft EIR's traffic study is flawed as the data it is based on a previous October 2018 traffic study_ Potential future residents of the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project will bring thousands of additional "car trips" per day onto our surface streets, and thus increases air pollution. Air pollution levels have already been exasperated in the last decade by increased annual wildfires in the Santa Clarita Valley. While the idea of widening the road to four lanes seems like a simple fix for this busy area —things are rarely ever that simple. The traffic study did not take into consideration the large "build -out" that has occurred and is still on -going just to the east of Bouquet Canyon Road up Plum Canyon. Adding a few more lanes at this site, while increasing the population in the area at the exact same time, is not Sierra Club comments9 going to result in a "better traffic" situation. That same logic has been used in other neighborhoods and has resulted in residents being stressed, air quality being worsened, and having residents put in danger when a wildfire threatens. Adding this proposed project to the area is an irreversible mistake. Another worrisome comment in the Draft EIR is where it states that there will be no greenhouse gas emissions from this project. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's website, "Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil)." Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and will most certainly be entering our community and the surrounding environment in large quantities due to the increased emissions from project construction and excavation vehicles. The local neighborhoods in this district are already suffering from the effects of poor air quality and this project will only make it worse. Adding hundreds of residential car trips, to an already congested area, is an unsafe situation even in spite of a proposed four -lane road. The Sierra Club would recommend the use of a better model to be used for the traffic levels. If the road must be widened at some point, we ask that it not be straightened. A curved road would be better for mitigating congestion and fits more with the community. The realignment and expansion of Bouquet Canyon Road, as proposed in this project, will increase congestion and increase air pollution in the northern region of the Santa Clarita Valley. • Green Building Standards: The Sierra Club requests that Platinum Green Building Standards be included as conditions of any aproval that might be considered. In keeping with _getting off fossil fuels we recommend all electric homes with solar panels and backup batteries. CONCLUSION The Sierra Club is concerned that if the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project development plan is approved, it will permanently destroy land that helps capture and store much - needed water for the community of the Santa Clarita Valley. By damaging irreplaceable riparian habitat and the hillsides, this project will remove dozens of precious oak trees and significantly disturb the endemic flora and fauna of the watershed. This proposed project will "butcher" a scenic ridegeline along Bouquet Canyon Road, and move 2 million cubic yards of soil into the riparian habitat and stream channel. It will endanger neighbors and residences due to the High -Risk Fire Hazard Severity Zone it proposes to build into. One other detail to note, is that in the Santa. Clarita Conservation and Open Space Element it states that housing developments must "meet the regional housing needs allocation... available throughout the City without impacting open space or resource conservation areas." This proposed project does not meet any of the standards outlined in our own city's aforementioned plan. These cumulative impacts should be taken into serious consideration. Finally, this riparian area is a potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem and according to Mr. Tom Barnes, of the Nature Conservancy, this is an indicator of habitat which is highly -valued. Doing so much devastation by accepting this proposed project would be a disgrace and dis-service to the environment of the Santa. Sierra Club comments 10 Clarita Valley. The Sierra Club requests that SCV Planning Commission denies approval of the Bouquet Canyon Project. Thank you for your consideration and time in reviewing our concerns. Katherine Solomon (27742 Carnegie Ave., Saugus, 661-753-6479), and Roger A. Haring Sierra Club Santa Clarita Group Conservation Chairs Sandra Cattell Sierra Club Santa Clarita Group Chair Hai Nguyen From: dfsurber@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 11:26 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon development `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good morning Sir — I'm writing in regards to the realignment and development on Bouquet Canyon road. I have no opinion either way on the proposal. My only concern is the impact of increased traffic on Alaminos Drive at Hob Court and Bouquet Cyn. as I live right at that point From all the maps I have seen, it looks like traffic would use Alaminos Dr. as an alternative to Copperhill Drive and Bouquet Cyn.when traffic gets heavy. I'm not sure how the traffic pattern at Old Bouquet Cyn. and Davids Way will be envisioned. When could I find the most recent map to see the proposal? Thank you for your time, Don Surber Hai Nguyen From: Brian Koegle <bkoegIe@pooleshaffery.com> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:24 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approval of the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WA/ I IITIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Hart: I write to request that the City's Planning Commission fully support the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a 37-year resident of this City — mostly within the community of Saugus — I have witnessed the creation of numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and community recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development, and provides for much needed inventory of homes for the families of our community. I understand that the developer has been working with the neighboring residents, conducting open houses and personal meetings, to receive feedback on what they envision to be the right development for the area. They have then taken those comments into consideration and constantly updated their plans to best fit the neighbors' needs. Having decreased the unit count and reducing the unit stories from three to two, the proposed plan maps out a thought -well development for the Saugus community. Furthermore, Bouquet Canyon Road is currently a long, curvy road — which is wonderful to drive on a Sunday afternoon, but has turned into an unsafe thoroughfare for the community. The proposed plan will reconfigure the road to allow for easy access, not just for the new development, but for the existing neighbors around the development, to smooth travel through a more direct route. Lastly, the proposed development will bring two recreational areas, trails, park space and trailhead parking. Not only will the residents have access to the trails, but there will also be public trails for residents throughout Santa Clarita to access. Our community NEEDS this project to proceed. As such, I would request that the Commission fully support and approve the submitted plans. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I sincerely appreciate your consideration! ! taro E. Kolegille N� IIII' �I fall i iritirOLE apgLm sTT ORM IE 'S AT L RJUGAMM, EVOSAMIES IIIIIIIII ^ n II'f 0 NUMMIFF 10 U1111111111M K461.0LI"!l1 ,Z111.4'511.51 I! M AW CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files orprevious e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. Hai Nguyen From: Liz Tolentino <liz@realestateliz.com> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 8:37 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X WIf"NIIIINGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Chair Hart and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing in full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a long-time resident of the City and neighbor to the area, I feel this development brings the necessary road improvements and additional housing our area desires. As you know, the improvements to Bouquet Canyon Road will allow easier access to the new community and for residents to get through. Furthermore, new Bouquet Canyon Road will alleviate traffic for the existing residents and open up new access for them to enter the main road. Lastly, the reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road follows the general alignment identified in the Santa Clarita General Plan. Overall, it will allow for a more direct route compared to the existing curve. The developer has been working closely with the neighbors as well. The project was originally proposed to have over 450 units and include three-story homes. After receiving input from the surrounding neighbors, they have decreased the unit count to 375 and will consist of two-story units. More so, units will be split into five different neighborhoods and include access to private and public trails as well as private recreation areas. As stated earlier, the developer has worked well with the neighbors and been fully transparent throughout the planning stages. They have taken all comments into consideration and were constantly updating the project to best fit the areas need. I feel the updated project falls in line with our City's vision for a smart and sustainable development. I ask for your full support and allow the developer to move to the next stage to get this project complete. Sincerely, Liz Tolentino 25124 Springfield CC Suite 100 Valencia, CA 91355 Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or need anything else. Thank you! Liz Tolentino REALTOR Text/Call 661.904.8471 L.>s.....:..:...:.....:...::.... Keller Williams VIP Properties CaIBRE 01748524 Hai Nguyen From: Lindenheim <lindenheim@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 5:31 PM To: Ian Pari; Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Community Project Attachments: Planning Commission Letter 081520.pdf CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Attached letter, FYI. My comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project. Comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Golden State Gateway Coalition, which does not have a position on this matter. Victor Lindenheim 818-489-8907 VICTOR E. LINDENHEIM 23781 HICKORY COURT VALENCIA, CALIFORNIA 91351 August 15, 2020 Philip Hart, Chairperson Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Boulevard Valencia, CA 91355 Dear Chair Hart and Commission Members: I am writing to offer my support for the Bouquet Canyon Community Development. With the current housing count, the reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and the addition of a park and publicly accessible recreational areas, the proposed development, in my view, is consistent with our City's vision for smart growth. I have resided in the City of Santa Clarita (Valencia) since 2004. Et should be noted that I serve as Chairman of the Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee. My professional interests are, in transportation, with an emphasis on roadway development, i.e., adding capacity and improving safety on north Los Angeles County highways and major thoroughfares. My comments, to follow, focus on the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road, which is, I understand, consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Excerpting from the Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the project regarding Transportation and Traffic, it states: "The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. form equipment)." Further on in the same EIR section, congestion impacts based an existing conditions and projected conditions in 2028 are referenced, and mitigation measures are identified: "A variety of intersection improvements such as new traffic signals, traffic signal synchronization, and increased capacity for through and turning movements would be required to improve levels of service to meet the City's performance standards. " Plans to improve roadway efficiency and safety are already in place. The August 5 summary of the Traffic Study for the project (included with the August 18 Planning Commission Agenda) identifies potential locations for intersection traffic controls, i.e. stop signs and traffic signals, Philip Hart August 15, 2020 I= In addition, modifications to the surrounding neighborhood roadway system have been developed by City staff to discourage non -local traffic from using local streets as cut -through routes. My understanding is that the developer is going to take on the City's long-time plan of realigning Bouquet Canyon Road to connect directly with the extension of Copper Hill Drive. This will take the road away from existing homes to help alleviate traffic congestion and improve overall circulation. The proposed plan will reconfigure the road to aflow for easy access, not just for the new development, but for the existing neighbors, around the development, to smooth travel through a more direct route. In summary, I believe that the project will help meet Santa Clarita's housing needs, while improving traffic circulation, in accordance with City plans and standards. Thank you for your consideration, Sincere Victor E. Lindenh,eiim From: Renee Arias -Hoke To: Hai Nouyen Subject: Bouquet canyon project Date: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:38:21 PM CITY \r1 ARINI I`J( This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I was born and raised in Santa Clarita and I am completely against adding in more homes. Not only will this bring in more traffic and crime and diminish the quality of life for those of us already living here but it is dangerous. It's a mudslide and fire risk. I cannot believe that while our firefighters are risking their lives in high heat and humidity today the city would be even considering adding to their stress and workload. I lived through the sand fire. If another fire like that pops up with the added stress of more folks trying to escape we will become another Paradise. Recently I was almost attacked by a coyote on a walk with my dogs, because wildlife is getting desperate and has no where else to go. I remember what it was like growing up in Santa Clarita. My parents moved here to get out of the San Fernando Valley and now the quality of life here is even worse. This madness needs to stop. Renee Arias From: alex dash To: Hai Nquyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Project Agenda Item 1 Date: Monday, August 17, 2020 1:42:32 PM ICITY WARIN I \J(This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please do not approve a ridgeline alteration permit for this project. The Ridgeline Ordinance was passed to protect our ridgelines, not allow them to be destroyed! No concreting of Bouquet Creek should be allowed. We need to protect our groundwater re -charge areas. Please reduce the size of this project to eliminate the impact to oaks, the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek. It will concrete additional parts of Bouquet Creek, pave over a blue line stream and groundwater recharge areas, impact a significant ridgeline and remove 27 oaks. The City has a Ridgeline Ordinance that is supposed to protect our ridgelines. People want to live in Santa Clarita for its natural beauty not for its cookie cutter houses and lack of nature. Thank you Alex Dosh Hai Nguyen From: Dennis Verner <dennis@scvcommercial.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:06 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II IiX WAlf"NIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. l urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, Dennis Verner SCV I III I II,,,, RIEAL IF.:IS..r.A.TIE: SIF.:'JRVCCIF S P.O. Box 801913 Valencia, CA 91380 27240 Turnberry Lane Suite 200 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 661 857 3571 C denn-i-s@scvcommercial.com Broker License # 01523815 Sales - IL easing - Management - Financing - Business Opportunities Hai Nguyen From: Kim James <keiamez@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:11 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Road Project OIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Sir, Aug. 18th, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will consider a 375 residential unit development in upper Bouquet Canyon. We should not take lightly the impact of removing a significant ridgeline, removing 27 oaks, the disruption of people and wildlife, the danger during earthquake and fires that this project will cause. The project will concrete parts of Bouquet Creek and pave over a blue line stream and groundwater recharge areas. I have lived here long enough to see the City of Santa Clarita turn a blind eye as Newhall Land and Farming paved over the creek to build Best Buy. It was illegal, happened practically overnight, and resulted in a fine which was one of the largest for a polluter at the time. Now, this proposal is going to fill the creek with the bulldozed ridgeline soil! This project will only fill the pockets of the developers at the expense of the livability of Santa Clarita. It isn't too late to say No! I am asking that you formally reject any recommendation for this project. It is a terrible idea. There is both fire and earthquake danger in this area. There is too much traffic in the area already and there will be additional traffic from the new homes along Plum Canyon that will significantly add to the number of residents and cars in the area. Adding 375 homes and thousands of residents is unwise. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Kim James 661-714-1904 Hai Nguyen From: Karina Winkler <gm.hixva@excelhotelgroup.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 5:01 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the Bouquet Canyon Project `II If X V N/ flIT N&I This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello City of Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners: Please note my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Development project. This project has been a blueprint for smart, local development our City should strive to follow. Having the developer work closely with the surrounding communities and making adjustments based on their input, shows the investment they want to bring into our City. As a long-time member of the community, the Bouquet Canyon Development will bring the construction of a new Bouquet Canyon Road. We have witnessed the current road for years and understand the new configuration would be aligned with the City's General Plan. Bouquet Canyon is currently a long and curvy road and the redevelopment will make it a more direct route for both residents of the new development, as well as neighboring residents who access Bouquet Canyon. The developer has also done well with listening to questions and comments in regard to unit counts and the style of housing. Before submitting their plan, they reduced their unit count and changed from three stories to two story units. This shows the investment the developer is putting in our City and not just come in to build. l urge the Planning Commission to vote in support of the project and allow for next steps to occur. We are looking forward to seeing this development come to life. Thank you, Karina Winkler I IIILriiI ::eral Nanager Holiday Inn Express & Suites Santa Crylarita 2 f 4�),l", Wayne `dI �Ils ..11 VC;M14'nI�.�.�C;M,'4.a :"'��,.1...,bb I V etc P 6 1-28 1-2101 I pox E 6 1 28 1-33b O Hai Nguyen From: Alex Hutson <alexohutson@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 5:31 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, I would like to go on record before the meeting tomorrow and state that a I greatly oppose this project as a neighbor that would live down the street. There are no shortages nor needs for this housing project other than revenue. That is not an acceptable excuse to continue demolishing the nature in our community. Alex Hutson Hai Nguyen From: SCOPE <exec-scope@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 5:32 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Agenda ! Attachments: Bouquet Cyn ProjectWAttachCor.pdf CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Here are the comments with the corrected attachments, sized to be readable. Apologies for the technical problems SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 8-14-20 Planning Commission and Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner City Of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Bouquet Canyon Project, Agenda Item I MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON POJECT) and all associated Permits, including the Ridgeline Alteration permit and Oak tree Removal Permit, Final EIR and CEQA Findings Sent via email to: hnguyen@s nta-clarita.com Please copy to all Commissioners Honorable Commissioners and Mr. Nguyen: We oppose the approval of this project in its current configuration and ask that you do not approve it. We request that you instead consider alternative 3. This alternative would preserve the ridgeline, leave Bouquet Creek with a soft bottom to promote much needed groundwater recharge and preserve additional oaks. We also ask that you recirculate portions of the EIR where it falsely informed the public that Bouquet Creek would remain soft bottom when in fact it is proposed as a trapezoidal concrete channel. This is a major impact and failure to disclose it must require re -circulation of the DEIR. According to the DEIR (page 5.0-7) Alternative 3 - Reduced Alteration to Bouquet Creek, Oak Trees and Wildlife Habitat would: "consist of a modified development plan that would preserve more of the open spaces on -site that support WUS and streambed resources, oak trees, and sensitive plants and wildlife. While this could be accomplished in a variety of ways, for the purpose of this analysis, this alternative would modify the proposed plan as follows: • The last 2 to 4 homes at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac in PA-1A would be relocated to one of the other PAs, so that the required fuel modification zones outside of the remaining homes would not extend into the cluster of oak trees that would be impacted by the proposed plan. The northern tip of PA-2 would be moved southward, to avoid impacts to a cluster of oak trees nearby that would be eliminated due to fuel modification zones requirements to protect those closest homes. A different mixture of housing types might be required to maintain or increase the number of homes in PA-2. • The entirety of Bouquet Creek through the project site would be preserved in its current condition, except for the eastern end where the new Bouquet Canyon Road segment would be SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project 2 bridged across, and there would be temporary impacts while that bridge was constructed. Buffer areas composed of appropriate native plant communities would be provided along both sides, to enhance the wildlife habitat and movement values. This would avoid any permanent impact to WUS and substantially reduce the extent of impact to streambed and riparian resources that occur in that area. This would also likely eliminate or substantially narrow and modify the alignment of the flood control channel that would parallel the creek, in the proposed plan. Elimination or narrowing/realignment of the flood channel would allow for more homes to be built in PA-2, as noted above, but would require substantial modifications to the proposed drainage system to provide an alternate means of conveying 100-year storm flows and lesser storm flows from the developed site. Preservation of Recharge Areas. In its current iteration, this project would concrete Bouquet Creek and a tributary drainage as well as paving over much of the flood plain recharge area. We are frankly surprised that the City would even entertain such a plane when, as part of the Integrated Resource Management Planning group, it has applied for and received grants to purchase recharge areas and has spent substantial money in matching funds to ensure continued sustainability of water supplies for our community. This project completely undermines those efforts. Continued recharge in this area is desperately needed. During the last drought, several of the water agency's wells stopped producing because of low water levels. (See Exhibit 1, attached). Without continued recharge this situation could occur even more often. This issue was not considered in the EIR and several people did not comment on it because the document seemed to imply that the creek could remain soft bottom. Loss of recharge and impacts on downstream wells should be calculated and disclosed in the EIR so that decision makers can fully assess all the impacts to current residents of this project. As noted in your staff report, the June 3rd letter provided by SCV Water Agency requests a correction on the Draft EIR's project description that the Project includes a proposed "soft - bottom" flood control channel. In fact, the proposed channel would be designed as a trapezoidal -shaped concrete channel, including a concrete lined -bottom. It is not sufficient to correct this in the Final EIR Errata section. This is a major impact and failure to disclose this in the circulated DEIR constitutes a litigatable issue. The letter also expressed concerns about the drainage facilities and recommends that, to the extent possible, floodplains remain undeveloped, and if creeks and rivers are channelized, they should remain soft -bottomed. (Page 9 of the staff report) Ridgeline Preservation SCOPE was on among the community group that met with the City during the formulation of the Ridgeline Ordinance. We spent many hours in meetings that resulted in an ordinance supported by the community that was then approved by the Council. Since that time, the SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project City has found a way to get around the ordinance every time a developer requests it. It is time that the City enforces its own ordinance. The EIR states that the project is possible with less impacts to the ridgeline. The current configuration proposes major alterations to the ridgeline as disclosed in Attachment F of your staff report and pictured above. There is no justification for this alteration permit when there is an alternative that would save the ridgeline Oak Trees An Oak Tree is on our County seal, yet you propose to allow the removal of almost half the trees on this project. These trees are important to wildlife and, through carbon sequestration, in reducing green house gases. It is important to preserve them. Alternative 3 would preserve more trees. CEQA Findings We believe the EIR does not disclose the full impacts of the loss of recharge as stated above and therefore findings of no impact cannot be made. There is no burden of proof to support a ridgeline alteration permit. Conclusion We urge you not to support the staff recommendation and instead approve Alternate 3. Thank you for your time Sincerely, President SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project Exhibit I 1 (smp.E� wppoNd[md IRMAUV 61 wr ET uer 2Hnr . ..... ...... ................. ... . ....... Sl IM 91 Klm K vef ET Pf El uer H—F 0I -ef .......... 66-inf 60 -f gn W LO-Inf LO—r . .............. qo-uq ......... . . .. go lIf so-u.F Io pr to uer ?.D Jer . ........ .... . ...... ro 00-M no M ....... . ....... 66-jnl 66 ull Br, pr SG-U,f LG of LG I' of or IT 96 Jef so --r ........ . ..............,mom V6 mr I, u.r ... ... ... .... .. ... ....... .. . .............. E6-lnf Eb `-f .22 ........... Ef., I rq zG-,,-r z 2 . ............ 16-Inj L6 o-r 0 -in 6 W, Of, ...... .... 68 I'm 12.1 68 M go nr 88 u.f [a—Inf. (%op.j) unplidowd ImmuV 10 41 .1 2 .......... . . 61 If 61-U" st Illf or. M IT IN ........... 9T or E.11'r K-UW . . . ....... ...................... or Inf oil--( 60 PF 60 u.1 . .. . . .. .... .... . . go lnr go twf LU lrq 1.0 ..f .... ........ 90-Inr qa­f so IM SO u.( ta.1m w "If Eo 14 EO ­f ZO-11'r �o uq Tu "I To u.r 00 pr 00 u.( 66-JUI 66-uq 96 Ullf 46rq ZG uw 96-Or 96 Ulf 96 uW KIM tr6 UUI . ......... . ...... ............. E61UF E6---f . ..... Z6 Of KG uef z .. .... WIN TG_..f ... . . ............ ..............ofi or ..... 06 off or 60 u.f Be IN < 92 "'r Of Hai Nguyen From: Randy Martin <drrandymartin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 6:23 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Project Agenda Item 1 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please do not approve a ridgeline alteration permit for this project. The Ridgeline Ordinance was passed to protect our ridgelines, not allow them to be destroyed! No concreting of Bouquet Creek should be allowed. We need to protect our groundwater re -charge areas. Please reduce the size of this project to eliminate the impact to oaks, the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek. Randy Martin, OMD Dr. Randy Martin, OMD 23812 Spinnaker Court Valencia, CA 91355 Hai Nguyen From: Raymond Ewing <rey_ewing@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:03 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon ridgeline CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I say NO to the ridge line waver. Sent from my iPhone Hai Nguyen From: Susana Rovero <cowgirlcad.sus@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:56 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Master case 18-089 `II If X WIf"NIIIIN: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. In regards to this project, I am opposing the building of new houses, and the destruction of our oak trees and wildlife in this open area or any open and rural areas that still are standing. This will cause more traffic, effect the supply of our water, more accidents and crime we do not need. This is a beautiful valley and it's being destroyed by all the building of new houses. This project is unessasary, cluster of houses, remember this will effect all in the area that live here, and neighboring areas. Regards Susana Rovero Please stop Hai Nguyen From: Mike Crawford <micrawford11 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 6:58 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: The Bouquet Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good Evening, This email is in regard to the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project. By the chance these emails are taken into consideration, I politely ask that this project does not move forward. For whatever reason, our local government feels the need to develop on nearly every square foot of the valley. I've lived here my entire life, and I am becoming heartbroken over the mass production and development of our land. Please reconsider this project... please consider leaving this rural patch of beauty the way it is. Please!!! Mike Crawford 661.644.4267 micrawfordll@gmail.com Hai Nguyen From: Jennie Marie <j.enn_ie@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:51 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I would like to go on record and state that I greatly oppose this project. I live on Benz Rd. -Jennie Hutson Hai Nguyen From: Brian Stoker <airborneb2002@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 3:09 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project Master Case 18-089 `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Greetings Hai: I would like to provide my email address to you for any and all City related correspondence regarding the above aforementioned Master Case. I wish to be a speaker on any and all issues regarding this Project, voicing my concerns with the project and potential health concerns when Construction begins. This will be an issue as it was for simple Soil Samples. I had to reach out to the coring company in order to address or mitigate what we experienced as a resident directly below the Soils being taken. Videos by me that demonstrate OSHA violations not in compliance with established guidelines. The City was not transparent in the Soil Samples taken on numerous issues and violations. I am interested in all aspects of this project and will ensure the Health and Safety of my family and the residents of this neighborhood and the impact that it will have when Construction begins to include Earth Moving. I heard the complaints of all those impacted with just the Soul Sampling. I worked with the Contractor and he agreed with my position and he mitigated the issue. That was not earth removal just coring. So it remains seen as to the Mitigation efforts that the City will be taking to ensure our Safety and well being. I have ideas that would suffice if the City and Developer wish to meet and confer over. Stay safe during these most difficult times. Hai Nguyen From: Grace Elliott <topazgrace @aol.com> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 9:01 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089 Update CJIYWAIRIVNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please notify: John Elliott (jackelliott@me.com) Grace Ell iott(topazgrace@aol.com) of any activities, meetings, and anything pertaining to this project. We, and our neighbors, are opposed to this project. Thank you. From: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Date: August 19, 2020 at 8:36:38 AM PDT Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089 Update Good morning: You are receiving this email because you have indicated that you would like to receive notifications or have submitted a comment letter on the Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089. At the August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item (Bouquet Canyon Project) to a date uncertain. Once a date has been scheduled, a notification email will be sent. Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita RXI r� �r 11 Hai Nguyen From: Grace Elliott <topazgrace @aol.com> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:06 PM To: Loretta Smith; Hai Nguyen Subject: Fwd: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR Y`II If Y WAIflIVIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Elliott <topazgrace@aol.com> Date: September 23, 2020 at 3:44:54 AM PDT To: Grace Elliott <topazgrace@aol.com> Subject: Re: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR September 22, 2020 Hi, Loretta! RE: Notice of Continued Public Hearing Application for the Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC. Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 6:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. It was a pleasure meeting you today. Thank you to you and your staff member for assisting me in your office regarding the correspondence I just received, via email, that the public hearing will be held at City Hall on October 6, 2020. I telephoned the number listed on the letter, but I was not able to reach anyone. I left telephone messages and felt I needed to go to City Hall to inquire personally today. When I first saw the four (4) huge notebooks containing volumes of reports and information in your office regarding the project referred to as the Bouquet Canyon Project, and when I was advised by one of your office staff that I would be charged 25 cents for each page of what amounted to perhaps thousands of pages. That's a lot of fees. I was concerned about being able to review the reports by the deadline of September 25, 2020. We were clearly not given adequate time to review all the information in order to respond within this shortened timeline of a report that was completed by the owner in August, and presented to the City of Santa Clarita recently. The correspondence from Jason Crawford indicates that the notification was published in the Signal on September 15, 2020, which gives residents very little time to respond. Please note that not all residents subscribe to The Signal. You made inquiries and were able to get a link to the EIR draft of August, 2020. Thank you for emailing this link to me. I will print it out to review, time permitting, so I can hopefully present a more thorough and organized response of concerns and questions to the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, by September 25, 2020. 1 will review as much of the information as possible and will also forward this link to neighborhood residents, as requested by them. I know there are many questions as to how this project of an additional 375 homes will impact residents in the surrounding areas. We have been assured that the impact will be minimal to us. Residents in our neighborhood question the accuracy of these statements. We were told this includes the closing of part of Bouquet Canyon Road, Please provide an update on the closure and detour route. A recent article in The Signal of August 14, 2020 now indicates no road closures during construction, per Hai Nguyen. Is my understanding correct that the completion date for this project is to continue through 2050? Some of the many concerns our friends and neighbors have and feel need to be addressed are: 1. Traffic - We will experience a higher level of traffic on an already extremely busy road with the addition of a possible two to three additional vehicles per residence amounting to 750 to 1,125 or more vehicles per day from this project alone. This is significantly more than the additional 50 or more trips that city staff are expected to present showing that "significant impacts related to traffic will be less - than -significant. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. 375 homes and 50 trips a day? Is this a typo? Please explain. I located this statement on-line from a Signal article dated August 14, 2020. Rush hour traffic will be further impacted by additional personnel hired to handle the preparation that new homes require - landscaping, furniture, window treatments and interior decorating, cleaning services, and more. Detours through existing residential neighborhoods will further add to traffic jams and safety issues for children. A concern is that some of the transient traffic will increase criminal activity in the area. 2. Air Quality - There have been poor air quality reports in Santa Clarita Valley, even before the on- going smoke from fires. I am sure there has been a spike in respiratory illnesses. More cars, more pollution. 3. Emergencies - In case of a natural disaster (earthquake, flood, etc.), or fires (fire trucks and rescue vehicles) rolling blackouts, medical emergencies (fire, ambulance services), criminal activity (Sheriff's and CHP), emergency vehicles will have a slower response time through street detours and additional traffic bottlenecks. What contingency plans have been set up to address these serious concerns? 4. Rolling Blackouts, Water Residents in this area have been advised that we will be facing rolling blackouts and water conservation requirements. Today, I briefly reviewed correspondence in one of the notebooks in your office, that on May 7, 2019, SCV Water wrote to Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner, that there is sufficient water to meet all the anticipated demands through buildout, estimated to occur in 2050. More water for the project means less water for the existing residents? More homes means more rolling blackouts? Answers? 5. Sanitation I read correspondence dated October 1, 2018, from Adrianna Raza, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County regarding annexation needed before service can be provided. What date this this occur? Is this related to the 375 vs. 461 units? Please explain. I noticed that Hai Nguyen received a letter from Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau for Sheriff Jim McDonnell on October 31, 2018, where reference was made to this 461 housing unit project - 45 single family detached units, 102 bungalows, 132 row homes, 90 homes in motor courts, 92 townhomes, not the 375 housing unit project currently listed. Please explain why the number of homes has been reduced. Does it have anything to do to water testing and report reviews required for 461 homes, but not for 375 homes? Please respond. 6. Please provide a map of the various streets, home sites, gate locations, open spaces, trails, recreation areas, Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive,and floodplain? This private, gated project has been referred to as affordable housing for millennials. What are the proposed square footages of home plans and prices of models? When the term affordable is used, there is a concern of property values being lowered. Again, thank you for your response to my inquiries. I will again contact Hai Nguyen, City of Santa Clarita's Bouquet Canyon Project Associate Manager at email: hnguyen@santa-clarita.com, telephone #661 255-4330. Sent from my Whone On Sep 22, 2020, at 2:03 PM, Loretta Smith <LSMITH@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Hi again, Grace, The Planning Commission meeting will be a zoom meeting therefore no residents will be invited to attend in person. The agenda for that meeting is scheduled to be available on October 2 (the meeting is scheduled on October 6) on the City's website and it will have instructions on how to view the meeting and how to either request to speak or make a written comment. Sincerely, Loretta sntith City of Santa Clarita Clerk & Contract Services 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (66I) 286-4073 1S111dt11((Osanta claadta a.om ....................... i....................................................................................................................................... <image002.jpg> From: Loretta Smith Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:55 PM To: topazgrace@aol.com Cc: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: FW: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR Good afternoon, Grace, Below is the link for all the materials you were viewing in the Draft/Final EIR for Bouquet Canyon. If you need anything further please feel free to call Hai Nguyen. His contact information is below. Please feel free to contact me if you have other concerns or questions regarding the City. Loretta sntith City of Santa Clarita Clerk & Contract Services 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (66I) 286-4073 1S111dt11(rOsa�ata claadta a.om ....................... i....................................................................................................................................... <image002.jpg> From: Hai Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:44 PM To: Loretta Smith <.I....SJM...I I[I I irnti 11 p lita c..o i.r..n..> Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR c�!p Elit a cairn lit.; a I 2p . .............. ............... .......................... ......... ............. . .d e yt.l o.Jr.!L �1.�I.iing/ ..... ..... .... . ..... 2.!�2.yiiroinirneintal iirnjr.g..�I...,. Etp ........... ........................................................................................ . ..... ..... u ir.l. d e ii il� e vJi e w.. Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Email: Lnguvena-santa-clarita.com Web: http://www.sa ta-clarita.com <image003.jpg> Hai Nguyen From: M Tripp <recn@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 8:20 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWAIRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Mr. Nguyen, My residence address is 28720 Woodside Drive just inside the city limits. I moved to this location a little over 20 years ago from Canyon Country. One of the appeals of living here is that we have no rear neighbor and the area was fairly quiet, without a lot of traffic. Things have changed over the years. Copper Hill has been opened up through David Way and created new and unwelcome traffic to our quiet little community. The Bouquet Canyon Project will had further traffic and congestion. Another concern area are the fires which have become the new normal. It's no longer a question of if we'll have a fire in our area, but when and how many each year. Building more homes in a high fire -threat area seems irresponsible to me. Another major factor that must be considered in any new project is the availability of water to the community. We had water rationing a few years back in Santa Clarita and as housing growth continues we'll be rationing water once again. We need to figure out ways to converse water, a very precious and increasingly scarce commodity. We need to impose higher fees for the use of water. The amount you pay for water should be based on the inefficiency in which you use it. People with grass lawns should pay a higher rate. They're wasting water. We need to incentivize people to conserve water. We're not doing enough in this regard. Last and not least is the environmental impact. I don't know what type of wildlife lives in the project area but we used to hear the howl of coyotes from the hills behind us. The sound of their howls was a reminder of our connectedness to nature. The coyotes have stopped howling. Slowly, our growth is eradicating the beauty of nature that surrounds us. It's sad to see it taking shape right in front of you. For all of the above reasons, I'm in opposition to the Bouquet Canyon Project. Sincerely, Martin Tripp Hai Nguyen From: lynne winner < lynnewinner@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 10:45 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Project `II If X If"NIIIIMC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Please do not approve a ridgeline alteration permit for this project. The Ridgeline Ordinance was passed to protect our ridgelines, not allow them to be destroyed! No concreting of Bouquet Creek should be allowed. We need to protect our groundwater re -charge areas. Please reduce the size of this project to eliminate the impact to oaks, the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek. Sincerely Lynne Winner Concerned Local Citizen 31202 Quail valley rd castaic 91384 From: Malcolm Blue To: Hai Nouyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Project Date: Saturday, August 29, 2020 5:01:25 PM CITY \r1 ARINI I`J( This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, Please do not approve a ridgeline alteration permit for this project. The Rddgeline Ordinance was passed to protect our ridgelines, not allow them to be destroyed! No concreting of Bouquet Creek should be allowed. We need to protect our groundwater re -charge areas. Please reduce the size of this project to eliminate the impact to oaks, the ridgeline and Bouquet Creek. Sincerely and Fervently, Malcolm J. Blue 26432 Marsala Drive Valencia, CA 91355 661.433.4384 Hai Nguyen From: Wayne Smith <wsmith@sciandassociates.com> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 4:07 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project Y`II If Y WNf"NIIIINGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To The Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, ?????? It seems as though we continue to lose more and more open space in Santa Clarita because the Planning Commission wants the development.?? The open space was one of the things that brought most of us to Santa Clarita Valley in the first place. 77 The Sierra Club is the one that brought this issue to my attention.?? I do not want 375 new homes built in and around Bouquet and Plum Canyons.?? That makes for more traffic, air pollution, and less open space.?? And apparently, this location on which is the new development is to take place is a City -designated Significant Ridgeline.?? Why destroy significant areas the City as designated as significant??? Plus there, apparently is a significant loss of riparian habitat and water charge area.?? Plus, there will be a loss of 27 protected oak trees.?? Why not just pave over all the open space??? Why even bother retaining any open space even though that is ??the very thing that brought most of us out her to begin with??? You really don???t need to approve every permit that is requested, do you? Those are my thoughts.?? There are less sensitive areas that can be developed than this one.?? By the way, I live in Canyon Country but work in Stevenson Ranch.?? Wayne Smith 77 SmithWayne CA License #0735053 CI & Associates 25129 The Old Road, Suite 105 Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 800-442-4724 ext. 110 Ib %"�"' A S, S 0 C. I , ;: fA1???? ?? Hai Nguyen From: nicole fischer <fischer-n@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 1:35 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Development projects CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom It May Concern I am a very concerned citizen of Santa Clarita. I have resided in this valley for over 20 years. I am a native Californian. I commute to Burbank for work. I am writing you in concern for the amount of developments going on in our Valley. With many factors to why Santa Clarita does not need more homes along with rest of California. The traffic has tripled since being out here. How is this going to be addressed? There is proven facts that California cannot maintain water sources during drought periods. Why would Santa Clarita allow more housing when this could put us in more of a crisis? With more fires than ever in California and Santa Clarita being one of the most vulnerable areas. Why would Santa Clarita allow more home in very dangerous areas. How will Santa Clarita fair to saving these homes? What has been done to protect wildlife? Tearing down hills and devastating mountains takes away from wildlife's homes. How does Santa Clarita plan on addressing these issues. How does Santa Clarita plan on taking accountability for the major changes that have been made to this Valley? Why wouldn't the City of Los Angeles make plans to develop up and not out? Our great state is being taken over by developers with no real plan to maintain the beauty of our state. Concerned resident Please get back to me Hai Nguyen From: Matthew Ropp < matthew@theropps.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 10:12 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Opposition to Bouquet Canyon Development `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To the Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners, I do not believe the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project should be approved. Instead, I believe the site should be protected as the significant water recharge area that it is. I do not want 375 houses to be built just north of the busy Bouquet Canyon and Plum Canyon Intersection. Adding more houses would only make traffic far worse and negatively impact every member of the community who travels on Bouquet Canyon Road. Also, eliminating over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a City - designated Significant Ridgeline in order to destroy a large riparian habitat is appalling. I cannot understand how we can be charged with double taxes (city and county) in order to protect precious stormwater runoff when this development is going to destroy a critical water recharge area for our community. Losing more water is a very real concern! We do not have enough water as it is. Traffic and air quality impacts, wildfire threats, and the loss of 27 oak trees which are protected under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance are more items that have not been mitigated appropriately or at all in the draft EI R for this project. The scope of this project and its resulting impacts on the quality of life for residents in the city is extremely concerning to me. I noticed that as this project has gone through the planning process, it has been reduced in size. Reducing the number of homes by a few blocks -worth is not enough. I am asking you to NOT approve this project. Sincerely, Matthew Ropp 25437 Via Impreso, Valencia, CA 91355 Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos.:) Hai Nguyen From: Jamie Goldsborough <jamiegswift@me.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 2:34 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I am sixteen year resident and home owner of Santa Clarita. Appalled and outraged at your proposals for the Bouquet Canyon project. Please add my name to any list of residents opposing this ghastly project. Also, please add this email to your notification lists for future meetings on this topic. Sincerely, Jamie Goldsborough Cato Valencia, CA Sent from my iPhone Hai Nguyen From: karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 4:17 PM To: Cameron Smyth; Bill Miranda; bkellar@santa-clalrita.com; Iweste@santa-clalrita.com; Marsha McLean; Hai Nguyen; Ken Striplin; karen towles; Breeanna Towles; Heather Towles; Chris Towles Subject: MC#18-089 Bouquet Cyn 375 houses development `II If X WA/ I IITIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello SCV City Representatives, I am corresponding to tell you of my concerns with this proposed project. The bouquet creek should not be cemented. Too many houses in another fire zone. More houses equal more traffic on our already congested roads. The loss of 27 oaks is always a true loss of these magetic trees and scrub oaks. Most importantly, I am appalled that the city thinks that it is OK to ignore our own RIDGELINE ORDINANCE. The ridgeline ordnance was created by the city of Santa Clarita with the purpose of preserving our natural ridgelines and the beauty and privacy that they provide. This is just another expansion that we do not need in the SCV's future. It' s time to stop developing and start preserving the way of life that many of us have enjoyed for over 40 years. Please do not continue to expand this city and thus turn it into another San Fernando Valley with wall to wall people. I appreciate your consideration of my concerns as a LONG term SCV resident. Respectfully, Karen Towles 661-478-1119 Virus®free.www.avast,coii� ................................................................................................. Hai Nguyen From: Rachel A. Clark Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:12 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: FW: MC#18-089 Bouquet Cyn 375 houses development From: karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:44 AM To: Rachel A. Clark <RACLARK@santa-clarita.com>; karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Subject: MC#18-089 Bouquet Cyn 375 houses development CJIYWAIRITN&This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello SCV Planning Commissioners, Mr. D. Masnada Ms.L Eichman Ms.R Berlin I am corresponding to tell you of my concerns with this proposed project. The Bouquet creek should not be cemented. SCV residents enjoy the natural topography of the creek. Also, too many houses in another fire zone. More houses equal more traffic on our already congested roads. The loss of 27 oaks is always a true loss of these magestic trees and scrubs. To use the excuse that they are not heritage oaks is minimizing the beauty and growth potential of the oak trees which are cherished in our valley. Most importantly, I am appalled that the city thinks that it is OK to ignore our OWN CREATED RIDGELINE ORDINANCE. The ridgeline ordnance was created by the city of Santa Clarita with the purpose of preserving our natural ridgelines and the beauty and privacy that they provide. The residents DO NOT want the ridgelines mowed down. This is just another expansion that we DO NOT need in the SCV's future. It's time to stop developing and START PRESERVING the way of life that many of us have enjoyed for over 40 years. PLEASE do not continue to expand this city and thus turn it into another San Fernando Valley with wall to wall people, cemented natural creeks and rivers, loss of our mountains' ridelines and magnificent oak trees. If this project must continue, please send the developer 'back to the drawing board' to save the oak trees, not cement the creek and not ignore our own ordinances in regards to the ridgeline and improved traffic and fire safety. You are my representatives and you have the power and authority to do so!!! I appreciate your consideration of my concerns as a LONG term SCV resident. Respectfully, Karen Towles 661-478-1119 .. ._--. www.a.rast c.2,n� Virus -free. ................................................................................................. Hai Nguyen From: Hai Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:28 AM To: 'karen towles'; Cameron Smyth; Bill Miranda; bkellar@santa-clalrita.com; Iweste@santa-clalrita.com; Marsha McLean; Ken Striplin; Breeanna Towles; Heather Towles; Chris Towles Subject: RE: MC#18-089 Bouquet Cyn 375 houses development Good morning Ms. Towles: Thank you for your email. My name is Hai Nguyen and I am the case planner for the project. I will include your email in the project record which will be included in the next agenda packet. Please note that at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the item was continued to a date uncertain. The item is now scheduled to return to the Planning Commission meeting on October 6, 2020. 1 have added you to the notification list for the project. You should have already received the Notice for the meeting in an earlier email. If you would like to speak on this item, the instructions will be posted with the agenda packet that will be available on October 2. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or concerns regarding the project by phone at 661-255-4365 and by email at hnguyen@santa-clarita.com. Thank you, Hai Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Email: hnquyenp_santa-claritaecom Web: http://www.santa-claritaecom From: karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 4:17 PM To: Cameron Smyth <CSMYTH@santa-clarita.com>; Bill Miranda <BMIRAN DA@santa-clarita.com>; bkellar@santa- clalrita.com; Iweste@santa-clalrita.com; Marsha McLean <MMCLEAN@santa-clarita.com>; Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com>; Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN@santa-clarita.com>; karen towles <kdbtowles@gmail.com>; Breeanna Towles <breez_er07@yahoo.com>; Heather Towles <heather.towles@gmail.com>; Chris Towles <lakebound6@sbcglobal.net> Subject: MC#18-089 Bouquet Cyn 375 houses development `II If X WA/ I IIVIIN&C This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello SCV City Representatives, I am corresponding to tell you of my concerns with this proposed project. The bouquet creek should not be cemented. Too many houses in another fire zone. More houses equal more traffic on our already congested roads. The loss of 27 oaks is always a true loss of these magetic trees and scrub oaks. Most importantly, I am appalled that the city thinks that it is OK to ignore our own RIDGELINE ORDINANCE. The ridgeline ordnance was created by the city of Santa Clarita with the purpose of preserving our natural ridgelines and the beauty and privacy that they provide. This is just another expansion that we do not need in the SCV's future. It' s time to stop developing and start preserving the way of life that many of us have enjoyed for over 40 years. Please do not continue to expand this city and thus turn it into another San Fernando Valley with wall to wall people. I appreciate your consideration of my concerns as a LONG term SCV resident. Respectfully, Karen Towles 661-478-1119 LJ www.a�iasf.�:�a' Virus®free.................................................................................................. Hai Nguyen From: Donald Woodmansee <djwoodm@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 12:33 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT Attachments: Bouquet Housing Project 2.docx Y`II If Y If"NIIIIM: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Attached is my letter of opposition to this project. Thanks, Donald and Joyce Woodmansee 28750 Kathleen Avenue Saugus, CA 91390 661-713-1117 |arnwriting inconnection with the 375home Bouquet Canyon Project. |vvroteinthepestto voice my objection to this development. Since that time, we have had a fire in the area with people having ehard time evacuating because oftraffic. The roads were enightmare. This was not e very big fire either. A large fire and there would be major evacuation problems. Also, there have been rotating power outages due tothe heat. |fvvedonot have enough electricity for the houses already here, more development should not be done. There is the threat of drought with straining our water resources. | have lived inthis canyon for 3Oyears. | wish to voice my strong objection to the development of houses in this location. This proposed housing development will include extensively altering the existing landscape and topography. Two million cubic yards ofearthwork would be required. The ridgdine would be significantly altered. In other words, all the mountains will be torn down. A section of Bouquet Creek would need to be channelized. Bouquet Canyon has a natural stream and a lot of wildlife would beaffected. 27protected oak trees would beremoved. This isdestroying precious oak trees. This does not support our vision of our city. We are taking a beautiful wilderness area and decimating it. This has already been done all the way across Plum Canyon with new houses and shopping centers. This development would significantly increase traffic. There is already way too many cars on Bouquet Canyon. It is used by commuters coming from Pe|nnde|e. It is used by commuters going into the San Fernando Valley and beyond. Additionally, a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road between Penn Court and Hob Court would dose and construction would change the alignment ofBouquet Canyon Road. This would be e traffic nightmare when it is under construction. Santa Clarita is overdeveloped and the roads, local population, and infrastructure cannot handle any more development. Plum Canyon already has thousands more homes. It will put more stress on our traffic and water resources and take away our beautiful mountains. Please donot approve this project. Donald and Joyce VVoodnnensee 2875OKathleen Avenue Santa C|ehte,CA9139O 661'713'1117 Hai Nguyen From: Grace Elliott <topazgrace @aol.com> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:06 PM To: Loretta Smith; Hai Nguyen Subject: Fwd: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR Y`II If Y WAIflIVIINGC This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Grace Elliott <topazgrace@aol.com> Date: September 23, 2020 at 3:44:54 AM PDT To: Grace Elliott <topazgrace@aol.com> Subject: Re: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR September 22, 2020 Hi, Loretta! RE: Notice of Continued Public Hearing Application for the Bouquet Canyon Project Owner, LLC. Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 6:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. It was a pleasure meeting you today. Thank you to you and your staff member for assisting me in your office regarding the correspondence I just received, via email, that the public hearing will be held at City Hall on October 6, 2020. I telephoned the number listed on the letter, but I was not able to reach anyone. I left telephone messages and felt I needed to go to City Hall to inquire personally today. When I first saw the four (4) huge notebooks containing volumes of reports and information in your office regarding the project referred to as the Bouquet Canyon Project, and when I was advised by one of your office staff that I would be charged 25 cents for each page of what amounted to perhaps thousands of pages. That's a lot of fees. I was concerned about being able to review the reports by the deadline of September 25, 2020. We were clearly not given adequate time to review all the information in order to respond within this shortened timeline of a report that was completed by the owner in August, and presented to the City of Santa Clarita recently. The correspondence from Jason Crawford indicates that the notification was published in the Signal on September 15, 2020, which gives residents very little time to respond. Please note that not all residents subscribe to The Signal. You made inquiries and were able to get a link to the EIR draft of August, 2020. Thank you for emailing this link to me. I will print it out to review, time permitting, so I can hopefully present a more thorough and organized response of concerns and questions to the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, by September 25, 2020. 1 will review as much of the information as possible and will also forward this link to neighborhood residents, as requested by them. I know there are many questions as to how this project of an additional 375 homes will impact residents in the surrounding areas. We have been assured that the impact will be minimal to us. Residents in our neighborhood question the accuracy of these statements. We were told this includes the closing of part of Bouquet Canyon Road, Please provide an update on the closure and detour route. A recent article in The Signal of August 14, 2020 now indicates no road closures during construction, per Hai Nguyen. Is my understanding correct that the completion date for this project is to continue through 2050? Some of the many concerns our friends and neighbors have and feel need to be addressed are: 1. Traffic - We will experience a higher level of traffic on an already extremely busy road with the addition of a possible two to three additional vehicles per residence amounting to 750 to 1,125 or more vehicles per day from this project alone. This is significantly more than the additional 50 or more trips that city staff are expected to present showing that "significant impacts related to traffic will be less - than -significant. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. 375 homes and 50 trips a day? Is this a typo? Please explain. I located this statement on-line from a Signal article dated August 14, 2020. Rush hour traffic will be further impacted by additional personnel hired to handle the preparation that new homes require - landscaping, furniture, window treatments and interior decorating, cleaning services, and more. Detours through existing residential neighborhoods will further add to traffic jams and safety issues for children. A concern is that some of the transient traffic will increase criminal activity in the area. 2. Air Quality - There have been poor air quality reports in Santa Clarita Valley, even before the on- going smoke from fires. I am sure there has been a spike in respiratory illnesses. More cars, more pollution. 3. Emergencies - In case of a natural disaster (earthquake, flood, etc.), or fires (fire trucks and rescue vehicles) rolling blackouts, medical emergencies (fire, ambulance services), criminal activity (Sheriff's and CHP), emergency vehicles will have a slower response time through street detours and additional traffic bottlenecks. What contingency plans have been set up to address these serious concerns? 4. Rolling Blackouts, Water Residents in this area have been advised that we will be facing rolling blackouts and water conservation requirements. Today, I briefly reviewed correspondence in one of the notebooks in your office, that on May 7, 2019, SCV Water wrote to Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner, that there is sufficient water to meet all the anticipated demands through buildout, estimated to occur in 2050. More water for the project means less water for the existing residents? More homes means more rolling blackouts? Answers? 5. Sanitation I read correspondence dated October 1, 2018, from Adrianna Raza, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County regarding annexation needed before service can be provided. What date this this occur? Is this related to the 375 vs. 461 units? Please explain. I noticed that Hai Nguyen received a letter from Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau for Sheriff Jim McDonnell on October 31, 2018, where reference was made to this 461 housing unit project - 45 single family detached units, 102 bungalows, 132 row homes, 90 homes in motor courts, 92 townhomes, not the 375 housing unit project currently listed. Please explain why the number of homes has been reduced. Does it have anything to do to water testing and report reviews required for 461 homes, but not for 375 homes? Please respond. 6. Please provide a map of the various streets, home sites, gate locations, open spaces, trails, recreation areas, Bouquet Canyon Road and Copper Hill Drive,and floodplain? This private, gated project has been referred to as affordable housing for millennials. What are the proposed square footages of home plans and prices of models? When the term affordable is used, there is a concern of property values being lowered. Again, thank you for your response to my inquiries. I will again contact Hai Nguyen, City of Santa Clarita's Bouquet Canyon Project Associate Manager at email: hnguyen@santa-clarita.com, telephone #661 255-4330. Sent from my Whone On Sep 22, 2020, at 2:03 PM, Loretta Smith <LSMITH@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Hi again, Grace, The Planning Commission meeting will be a zoom meeting therefore no residents will be invited to attend in person. The agenda for that meeting is scheduled to be available on October 2 (the meeting is scheduled on October 6) on the City's website and it will have instructions on how to view the meeting and how to either request to speak or make a written comment. Sincerely, Loretta sntith City of Santa Clarita Clerk & Contract Services 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (66I) 286-4073 1S111dt11((Osanta claadta a.om ....................... i....................................................................................................................................... <image002.jpg> From: Loretta Smith Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:55 PM To: topazgrace@aol.com Cc: Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: FW: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR Good afternoon, Grace, Below is the link for all the materials you were viewing in the Draft/Final EIR for Bouquet Canyon. If you need anything further please feel free to call Hai Nguyen. His contact information is below. Please feel free to contact me if you have other concerns or questions regarding the City. Loretta sntith City of Santa Clarita Clerk & Contract Services 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (66I) 286-4073 1S111dt11(rOsa�ata claadta a.om ....................... i....................................................................................................................................... <image002.jpg> From: Hai Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:44 PM To: Loretta Smith <.I....SJM...I I[I I irnti 11 p lita c..o i.r..n..> Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project EIR c�!p Elit a cairn lit.; a I 2p . .............. ............... .......................... ......... ............. . .d e yt.l o.Jr.!L �1.�I.iing/ ..... ..... .... . ..... 2.!�2.yiiroinirneintal iirnjr.g..�I...,. Etp ........... ........................................................................................ . ..... ..... u ir.l. d e ii il� e vJi e w.. Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Email: Lnguvena-santa-clarita.com Web: http://www.sa ta-clarita.com <image003.jpg> Hai Nguyen From: Linda Koontz <Lnda@storli-koontz.com> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 11:17 AM To: Hai Nguyen Cc: Peter Warda (TMG) Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I am in support for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Development project. As a soon to be (I hope, only waited 16 years) resident of this City, I have witnessed numerous housing projects around the area and feel Bouquet Canyon serves our communities needs at best. With the housing count, reconfiguration of Bouquet Canyon Road and recreational areas, the development follows our City's vision for smart development. I also particularly think the attention toBouquet Canyon Road is beneficial to everyone. As a past Park" s Commissioner I really appreciate a builder that is going to build into the project parks, trails etc. Linda Storli President Wm. S. Hart School Board REALTORO DRE# 01102361 Storli-Koontz RealtyTeam JP Investments #01391470 661.313-8960 1 ARMA A coalition of community and business leaders focused on the health and vitality of Califomias transportation backbone" — Interstate 5 — September 30, 2020 Philip Hart, Chairperson Santa Clarita Planning Commissi 23920 Valencia Boulevard 11 Dear Chair Hart and Commission Members - I am writing on behalf of the Golden State Gateway Coalition to offer our support for app;ro,val of the Bouquet Canyon Community Development. Our organization fo;;;cuse on improving roadway transportation: in north Los Angeles County, and we believe th the Bouquet Canyon Community Project will contribute to that objective with its commitment to the realignment of Bouquet Canyon Road. I Further, with the current housing count, the reco nfig u ration of Bouquet Canyon Ro,44 and the addition of a park and publicly accessible recreational areas, the proposed development is consistent with our City's vision for smart growth and General Plan Circulation element. For the above reasons, we urge the Santa Clarita Planning Commission to approve the proposed Bouquet Canyon Community Development for construction, with that recommendation forwarded to the City Council- Sinc eiy, Victor E. Lindenheim Copies to: Hai Nguiyen, Ian Pari 2 804 2 Avenue Stanford, Unit E; Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Telephone (661) 775-0455 - Fax (661) 295-0692 - www goldenstategate way org To: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 From: Roger A. Haring, Concern Citizen of the Santa Clarita Valley A COMMENT LETTER TO THE SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE EIR: BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT (MASTER CASE NO. 18-089). Dear City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Board Members I would like to bring to the attention of the board the results of the Bouquet Canyon Sub - Watershed Assessment Project: California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Survey Report: Middle Reach. Overview of the CRAM Survey Report of the Bouquet Canyon Watershed (Mid -Reach) With concerns for both man-made and natural disasters (fires and floods) in the Bouquet Canyon Watershed, a California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) was completed on the "mid -reach" of the watershed in August 2014 by ECORP Consulting, Inc. The purpose of the CRAM Survey was to measure and record `visual metrics' of riparian habitat in order to better understand the level of integrity of the landscape, hydrology, physical, and biotic factors. The Bouquet Canyon "mid -reach" is dominated by a mixture of rural residential areas, light commercial enterprises, agricultural areas, and undeveloped lands. While, the creek channel has been modified to reduce flooding potential and preserve private property, it is still considered defined as a "non -confined riverine sub -type." In the 2014 CRAM Survey, one of the Assessment Areas of the survey was performed on the current proposed Bouquet Canyon Project property. For each Assessment Area (I -III) CRAM Attributes and Metrics were recorded (See Below). Figures 1 & 2: Project Location and Vicinity Map of the CRAM Assessment Areas (I -III), as well as, the CRAM Attributes and Metric Table. Note: Assessment Area (III) highlited on the map. Figure 1: Map of CRAM Assessment Areas Figure 2: CRAM Attributes and Metrics i Table modified froma"mW2,J13a. The CRAM Survey performed (2014) scored the `hydrology attribute' of this particular assessment site of the stream at (75%). This score indicates the stream channel "entrenchment" was much lower compared to the other upper reaches of this same stream channel. The lower entrenchment of the channel means it is not cutting in depth, rather it is more free to "wander and braid" on the flood plain of the property. It is this unique watershed characteristic which allows for efficient water -flow capture and infiltration into the alluvial aquifer. Hence, the reason why any disturbance (construction, grading, excavating) to the property's flood plain, riparian habitat, and stream channel will alter, reduce, and potentially permanently stop the natural infiltration of water flow into the alluvial aquifer. Figure 3 & 4: Bouquet Canyon Creek flow at AA -III, shows a "wide bank to bank" watermark during winter months of high precipitation. During these high flow periods, significant recharge to the alluvial aquifer of the Santa Clarita Valley's East -Sub -basin can occur. Figure 3: Assessment Area III Up -Stream Figure 4: Assessment Area III Down -Stream Assessment Area -III: Evaluation AA -III is located on the development property, downstream from the Los Angeles County Fire/Forestry Unit and Probation Camps. It is one of the "more natural portion(s)" of the creek channel with few influences from urban development. Much of the creek channel in this area is "undisturbed by human activity. " The CRAM analysis revealed that this particular assessment area has only three stress factors present: 1. Non point source discharge, 2. Lack of treatment of invasive plant species, and 3. Transportation corridor. Interestingly, none of the stress factors have any significant effect on the AA -III, except the population of invasive weed species (Arundo donax) can reduce the water infiltration rates, and copious amounts of biomass is a fuel source for wildfires. The AA -III scored the highest in buffer and landscape context (80%), highest in hydrology attribute (75%), highest in physical structure (63%), and second highest in biotic structure (56%). The overall average score for the AA -III was (69%). The main recommendation for improving the AA -III, where the Bouquet Canyon Project is proposed, is to manage the invasive weeds (Arundo donax), in order to reduce a significant fire / flooding hazard. Conclusion A California Rapid Assessment Method analysis was conducted on the mid -reach of the Bouquet Canyon Watershed in order to better understand the level of integrity of the landscape, hydrology, physical and biotic factors contributing to the overall health of the watershed. The highest overall score (69%) was given to the AA -III Site where the current Bouquet Canyon Project site is proposed. The main recommendations made by the ECORP Consulting, Inc. were, threefold: 1. To manage the "non-native invasive plant species, 2. Where appropriate, restore native species, and 3.Manage stream flows in order to retain and maximize water percolation within the local area. ECORP Consulting, Inc concluded: "We recommend finding ways to reduce influences on the stream channel from nearby disturbances such as development and transportation corridors," (Tayor, S., ECORP Consulting, Inc. 215 North 5'h Street, Redlands, CA. August 21, 2014) Thank you for your consideration and attention on the importance of "watershed protection" for of the Santa Clarita Valley. Sincerely, Roger A. Haring, Project Coordinator/Agriculture Access BCN October 1, 2020 3250 Wilshire Boulevard (213) 387-4287 phone �. Suite 1106 I P� www.sierraclub.org Los Angeles, CA 90010 C L Li B October 1, 2020 PROPOSED BOUQUET CYN. PROJECT (Master Case 18-089) COMMENTS The applicants for the proposed Bouquet Canyon Project requested that we meet with their team of advisors (authors of portions of their EIR) on September 23, 2020. The purpose of this meeting was to review the Santa Clarita Sierra Club Conservation members' concerns with the applicant's Environmental Impact Report. Unfortunately, the applicants asked no questions of us regarding how they could work to improve their proposed project and came forward with no new mitigations or changes of any kind for their flawed EIR. Of even more concern on our part, is that their team of advisors were not able to answer our questions regarding hydrology, biology, and geology concerns. In fact, we were told repeatedly that their advisors had either not actually been on -site, were not "experts" in the portions of the EIR that they worked on, or that they did not work on the portions of the EIR that they were there to talk about. Specifically, Mr. Farmer and Mr. Amir, the applicant's respective hydrologist and biologist, stated they were not "experts" on geology and biology —each of their responsibilities on the EIR. It was disappointing to hear that the applicants have not taken any of our well -documented concerns to heart and held a meeting with us which left our team perplexed to say the least. The advisors we met with were: Evan KnappSIKAND Scott ConvingtonInternal Project Manager Amir Morales —HELIX Environmental Planning Steve Niedecker—Chula Vista Conservancy Doug Farmer —Hydrologist Mari PrutzSIKAND Project Manager Henry Welsh —Sr. Vice President of SIKAND Hunt Braly Our take-aways from the meeting on September 23, 2020 did include a few new insights that we wanted to share with you now. The EIR is utilizing the wrong baseline for its water numbers. Instead of using the average of the historic full -flow amount, as guaranteed by the Department of Water and Power, the EIR focuses on current flow levels that have been impacted by temporarily reduced reservoir water flow. This is a serious issue as the water recharge that occurs on site is unprecedented and must be preserved. They stated that they have a "ditch" which can absorb water. Mr. Farmer actually called the low -flow soft -bottom channel a "ditch" and acknowledged that we would have to speak to the geologist for the project to have our questions answered regarding the impact of the liquefaction zone on the development; even though he is the hydrologist for the project and hydrologists are geologists. Sierra Club comments2 Amir Morales who oversaw the Biology for the EIR admitted that he is really a hydrologist after failing to report certain species of plants on site. He also stated that there have been only "8 to 10 visits on the site" for biology. When asked about specific flora and fauna located on the proposed development site, he remarked that he has not been to the site... his team has. This is the same person that is in charge of inspecting the site. Among other concerning statements he made during our meeting, Mr. Morales stated that the creek is ephemeral. It is not. It is a permanent blue -line creek. The EIR is also based on inaccurate data: fill analysis was of the wrong watershed, focusing on the Santa Clara River rather than Bouquet Creek. These aforementioned concerns, all point to the fact that Bouquet Creek is not being treated with the respect it deserves as a permanent blue line creek. Concrete -bottom channels are an unacceptable option in such an important watershed area. Los Angeles County has learned this lesson and is currently removing concrete -bottom channels in their flood control areas. Water concerns are of huge importance. However, those are not our only areas of worry. When we asked to speak with the EIR geologist for the project regarding geologic concerns, we were told that Ted Wolfe (their geologist) was not on the call. Knowing that this site is a liquefaction hazard zone, and one would assume that the city wants to avoid future lawsuits, much is riding on Mr. Wolfe's knowledge of the area. We were told we would have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Wolfe, however that meeting never materialized on the applicant's side. We are left to provide you with the information that we would have discussed with Mr. Wolfe. At present, the "bend" a meander bend in Bouquet Creek directs erosion northwestward, away from the proposed development site. When the bend is removed, how will this affect the flow of the creek? If the flow becomes diverted so as to cause erosion in a southwestwardly direction, then erosion will eat into the easily erodible Castaic formation, thereby undercutting the 300-feet high hill, upon which new homes might be built. This is a huge problem on site as the channel should not be concreted. If the floodplain were channelized, it would adversely impact the water supply of the entire city. The creek must be left intact to the 100-year floodplain range in order to capture the most amount of water. However, if the creek is not channelized the entire project will come down in a landslide. These geologic concerns are particularly devastating and require a very knowledgeable geologic perspective. The Plum Canyon -Bouquet Canyon area is situated in the western Soledad basin, where landsliding is a common geomorphic process. Slopes are steep and slope failures are the response to on -going erosion to lower their gradients. The rock types in the area contain clay/mud sediments which have been deformed by folding and related faulting. The clay/mud content of the Castaic Formation facilitates various types of landslides (block -glide, cross -bedding, and earthflow). Block -glide landsliding is the most common type of large-scale mass wasting in this area. The area of the proposed development is immediately adjacent to known and publicized landslides. The same rock units involved in these landslides are the ones that crop out in the proposed development area. Slopes in the proposed development are up to 300 feet in relief. How much grading or slope reduction will it take to make the area safe for development? The cost definitely Sierra Club comments3 outweighs the benefit of even attempting such an endeavor. We were assured during our meeting that Mr. Wolfe had the geology matters under control —that he was very well - respected in our local area. However, speaking with local and well-known geologists in the Santa Clarita area, not a single one has ever heard of Mr. Wolfe. We could find no research that Mr. Wolfe has ever submitted and no peer -reviewed work of his in any scientific journal; whereas the geologists we spoke to, who are extremely concerned about this project, are all renowned in their fields and regularly submit papers to peer - reviewed journals on Santa Clarita's hydrology and geology. It is also critical to note that Mr. Wolfe is the Vice President of Petra Geosciences. Petra is from Costa Mesa —not a local company. This is an important detail regarding Mr. Wolfe's geology contributions to this project because the inadequacies of the EIR point to the fact that local geological research was not addressed. It is concerning when outside companies try to dictate what happens to our local neighborhoods. Additionally, Petra was almost sued in California courts over malpractice, escaping by an issue with the summons being served properly. Does the city want a future lawsuit over the liquefaction zone in this area, after all, it is not a matter of "if' something will happen, but "when?" As described in our previous letter to you, we found the potential destruction of a critical aquifer recharge zone and groundwater dependent ecosystem to be unacceptable. The applicant is suggesting to eliminate over 2 million cubic yards of earth from a city - designated Significant Ridgeline which flies in the face of our essential Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Additionally, they propose filling -in the riparian habitat. Ultimately, the loss of 27 oak trees, degradation of a unique riparian habitat, the threat of intensive wildfires, the increased traffic, and the serious impacts on air quality all point to the fact that this development project is flawed. The proposed site is a Liquifaction Hazard Zone and a Calfire designated "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" as indicated by this week's Martindale Fire along Bouquet Canyon Road! In overview, the scale and scope of this project, and the multiple impacts this project will have on the region, will only degrade the natural environment and negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods both in the short and long-term. Additionally, we have become aware of people who live in close proximity to the proposed site who are still unaware of this project. Neighbors who have just been made aware are extremely concerned and are reaching out to us about the lack of time that they have now to comment. If you live south of the site and your commute is also to the south of the project (which is true for most neighbors of the proposed site) you would not have seen the notifications for the development. Notifications for the development are to the far north and/or out of view of most neighbors (those who will be severely impacted by the proposed development). The Sierra Club of the Santa Clarita Valley does not see that this is a viable project as planned, instead we would ask that you vote to deny the project. The community is in opposition to this project! Sierra Club comments4 Thank you for your consideration and time in reviewing our concerns. Katherine Solomon (27742 Carnegie Ave., Saugus, 661-753-6479 Sierra Club Santa Clarita Group Co -Conservation Chair Sandra Cattell Sierra Club Santa Clarita Group Chair References: Larson, R. A. 1990. Landsliding in the western Soledad basin, Los Angeles County, California. In, C. J. Buckley and R. A. Larson, eds., Geology and engineering geology of the western Soledad basin, Los Angeles County, California. Southern California Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Field Trip Guidebook, November 3, 1990, p. 77-97. Hai Nguyen From: Ken Buchan <kjbuchan@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 1:32 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project; Master Case 18-089 `CJIYWNRNHNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Sir, Regarding the Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089: I am a local resident (32 years at this home) and would like to voice the following concerns regarding this project: 1) Removal of the ridgeline. Our Hillside Ordinance is meant to protect our ridgelines. 2) Removal of riparian habitat. If this project is approved in any form, as a mitigation measure, 1 would request that consideration be given to allowing (or planting) native trees to grow in the river bottom downstream from Hob Court. Many trees are currently present in our Flood Control areas throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. 3) Channeling of Bouquet Creek, and subsequent loss of replenishing our groundwater. 4) Loss of 27 Oak trees. 5) Increased traffic congestion in our neighborhood. 6) The proposed density of the project is too high. This area should support only detached single- family homes. For these reasons, I have reservations regarding this project as currently proposed. Thank you. Ken Buchan 28533 Bud Ct. Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Hai Nguyen From: Mike Crawford <micrawfordl1 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:52 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Re: Bouquet Canyon Project Update CJIYWAIRITN&This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. This is an absolute train wreck of an idea! PLEASE DO NOT BUILD THIS DEVELOPMENTM Do you think my sentiments are unique? Check out the comment section on this link: Irnt:t:as: www.facelracncnik..ccnirm �..32➢2544343➢235 acast.;s 346242�..➢3045➢553 ?exti;;lid::::::0d::::::irn l..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No one thinks this is a good idea!!! Mike Crawford 661.644.4267 micrawfordll@gmail.com On Oct 1, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Hai Nguyen <HNGUYEN@santa-clarita.com> wrote: Good afternoon: You are receiving this email because you have indicated that you would like to receive notifications or have submitted a comment letter on the Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089. The Bouquet Canyon Project was initially presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2020. The follow-up presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for October 6, 2020 at 6:00 pm. Please see the attached Agenda Packet document for the following meeting: Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2020 6:00 PM 23920 Valencia Blvd. 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 rv"7��g�jP=k �View ��it d Packet ,:p. .....�............ ..l,�........,,!........................ . .......... .. The meeting will be conducted via Zoom. If you wish to attend and/or speak at the meeting, the instructions are at this link: rnt.;t.;.as: sair�t.;acllarlit.;aclit.; ca.li irm 2.coirm Clit:l zeir"ns IFIiIle aeir�.as ax?li` ae:::::: �..4 1111 :::::: �..640 11irnllliirne::::::ll 1-ye l.....................................................................................................Y.......................N........................................................................................................................................................................i ..........................Yi.................................................................................................................................................................................. Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Rumbil umew"@&�Akwhio* iTOIRJW!W jfflZMTZWR,MR�mwm <imageOO1.jpg> Hai Nguyen From: Dennis P. Hunter <dhunter6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 7:32 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Opposition - Bouquet Development CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Good morning, I'm writing you in opposition of the new Bouquet development. I reviewed the draft EIR and am concerned with the aesthetic of the development being out of place with the surrounding area. Furthermore, the light pollution will lower the quality of life for existing residents. Lastly, the traffic would cause a significant amount of strain on the existing residential streets around the development. I live on Alaminos between Benz and Hobb and would be greatly impacted by the issues mentioned above. Thank you your consideration of my comments. Dennis P. Hunter Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Deeana Betsamo Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Paul De La Cerda Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Erin Hooper Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Brian Koegle Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Pam Ingram Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` a " Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Henry Rodriguez Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Lindsay Schlick Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipain of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas here 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Linda Storli Representing Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX Email Street Address City Written comment:* I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'leglisteir as a 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Liz Folentino Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* ,John Vance Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 9_11" M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Dennis Verner Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Alen Warda Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` .mac 7 W, No, e", Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Troy Hooper Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` (t lrno„ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Andre Hollings Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Nathan Keith Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Christine Keith Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` 011 Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Barbara Myler Lnu�p Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Aaron Seelman Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` rs !ew,2, Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Nancy Starczyk Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Dennis Sugasawara Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` IWW 'tr Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Demiel Lachin Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Ninveh Mansour Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Troy Yudin Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 661 -904 -3717 Email M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: We need to help increase safety can Bouctue'twith'this project, create price .a'ttalnable housing and add new trails. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Molly Grace Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI city Saugus Written comment: I really like the addition of open space and new public trails. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIEcILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UIIEAIMIDCO11211211ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Mike Monroe Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI city Santa Claritta Written comment: I support this project as we need more housing options in Santa Clanta for our growing community. fhe 'trails and parks kook awesome 'too. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®cII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®c'Tf„ Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Emily Frey Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI city Santa Clarita Written comment: We regularly enjoy the City's trails and open space. Phis project is connecting to a lot more places. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®cII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®c'Tf„ Speaker Signature` ON ell;41- Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Brigette Yousif Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6613137135 Email _.. city Saugus Written comment: As a resident of Saugus, I 'Fully support this project. fhe need for bouquet canyon realignment is crucial to our area. I'm concerned about the safety and this will help alleviate the issue. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIEcILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UlEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Elizabeth Seelman Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Victor Lindenheim Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your written conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your written coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your IIinforimation Coirnirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* ,Jeffrey Forrest Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 9_11" M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: I support the Bouquet Canyon Project Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Clairita Connimissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinformatiioin tag the submitted tag the Conninnissioin Secretary. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description MAS NER CAST® 18.089 (BOUO.UE f CANYON PROJEC f) Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III'°°'OR. III"°Xl11JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns irequire that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate iiirn the tellecoirnll'ereirnce, Speakers must provide theiir 9'ullll name and the phone irnuirnnber they intend to use to access the meetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their computer audio to participate iiirn the meeting must also provide their phone number. Full Name` Roger A. Haring Representing Concerned Citi.ren Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* 80 a..-641.3781 Email rahl 969@hotmail.com Street Address PCB BOX 892622 city Santa Clarita Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_A11211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® IF01121E OII1M IIS 'Tf RUlE AIMID COIR1121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly .state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly .state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the City's agenda management system at.:salnta cllalriiila.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the Form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employees, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointees official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Regll.:bteir as a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Ilt you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Traffic and Safety Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` EMMIMMM Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Jtcdavenport@gma iLcom Street Address 28601 Bouquet Canyon Rd city Saugus Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sal flta cllalriitia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commission Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, Commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. 'teglisteir as a o1b1byllst Ilhelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be Considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Troy Hooper Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` (t lrno„ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas harsh 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Erika Kauzlarich-Bird Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* MHEMMIUM Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation Filps i fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` MEMEHEM Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* ZGENEIRM Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. From: Dnzgg <dnzgg@aol.com> Date: October 5, 2020 at 8:42:31 PM PDT To: Ken Striplin <KSTRIPLIN@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Saugus Development Reply -To: Dnzgg <dnz@aol.com> CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Mr. Striplin: I am writing to share my thoughts regarding the development in Saugus that will be discussed at Tuesday's meeting. I am extremely concerned about this development for the following reasons: increased housing would increase traffic which is already becoming a problem, the elimination of much of the earth from the ridgeline will negatively affect the large riparian habitat, and this development may reduce the value of our homes. It worries me a great deal to see the increase in traffic and smog in the Santa Clarita Valley; which is affecting our quality of life. I encourage you to seriously look at the negative effects from this development. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Adriana Gomez 661-259-3579 Hai Nguyen From: Rob Larmon <roblarmon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:56 AM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project concerns `CJIYWAIRITNGThis email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Hai, I was told to email you about concerns about the proposed project along Bouquet Canyon, adding 375 homes. If this should go elsewhere, please let me know. I'm very concerned about this project for several reasons... - In general - this area of Saugus has been long neglected, for many reasons below that I've pointed out below, among other reasons. If this project is going to be approved, we need major reinvestment in several areas... - Traffic - single -lane traffic along Bouquet and surrounding streets is already congested, especially during rush hour times, especially once school is in session physically again. If Bouquet is expanded to 2 lanes (on each side), that would help tremendously, otherwise this is simply impacting the neighborhoods unnecessarily. With all the additional homes on Plum Canyon now, this has pushed more traffic onto Bouquet/Copperhill. Now it's going to be even worse. What are the city's plans to mitigate these issues? Honestly, we need 2 lanes on Bouquet to Vasquez Canyon, and 2 lanes on Vasquez to Canyon Country. We're starting to drown in a sea of stop lights. Also, people already bomb through Bouquet/Copperhill streets just off of David Way, ignoring stop signs and speed limits. The city rarely shows a police presence in this area. This will simply cause more accidents, more lives ruined because people view that area of Bouquet as their Autobahn. - Sidewalks -there are no sufficient sidewalks on Bouquet or Copperhill currently near David Way. It's very rural, lacking the support of the city compared with areas closer to the city center. What is the city doing to modernize the adjacent and impacted neighborhoods? We need contiguous sidewalks (with proper accessible corners, crosswalks, and lighting) from this proposal to Bouquet/Plum and Copperhill/Haskel. - Cell service - cell service is currently horrible in this section of Saugus. I mean, 1 bar max in most parts of the neighborhood (I walk it every day trying to use streaming services) When I called Verizon a couple weeks ago, they said it's a "known issue", with no plans for improvement. Their map shows full service, but it's simply not true, and it's been this way for over 10 years. Everywhere near this proposed neighborhood has poor cell service (Plum/Bouquet/Copperhill). For some reason the city is anti -cell -tower, the last time I saw the City Council discussed it, it was decided we didn't need more towers. Until this changes, this project is a horrible idea. - Internet service - internet service is spotty in this area and has not seen any major upgrades in a long time. Existing homes will be negatively impacted when another 375 homes are bolted on to existing infrastructure. Every neighborhood should have access to fiber, not just the new neighborhoods. Is this being considered? What is being done to mitigate/improve things? -Traditional radio service - also bad. See Cell and Internet above. Any improvements considered? - Fire danger - I've seen this area on fire when we had our last big fire. What fire mitigations are in place? Is there going to be an additional fire station? We keep encroaching on areas with greater fire danger without mitigating the existing issues in Santa Clarita. When are we going to do controlled burns to minimize risk of our neighborhoods adjacent to brush zones? - Additional water needs - between this and other areas being built, this puts increased needs on our water supply. We've had recent issues with contamination in wells, etc.. What is being done to mitigate these issues? Where is the additional water coming from? What about the horrible droughts we just had a few years ago? That water has to come from somewhere when there is a shortage. - Encroaching on wildlife areas - we keep adding more homes, decimating wildlife areas. We need more city -preserved open spaces, parks, outdoor recreation areas, paseos, trails, etc., not more homes. We need to teach our children about nature, not about more suburbia. This area has low-lying areas where streams, etc., run, what is being done to preserve it? From what I can tell, there simply isn't a need for more homes in this area. Santa Clarita is already expanding tremendously, which is going to negatively impact the recent gains that our City Manager just touted in his recent state of the City regarding traffic. We simply don't need this neighborhood. What benefit does it bring to us in the surrounding neighborhoods? If any, it hasn't been communicated. It's very troubling to see how the city has ignored this area for years and years, but if someone wants to build 375 homes, wow, that's a great idea! We need to see that the city cares about our neighborhoods before negatively impacting them. Otherwise I know who I'm NOT voting for next month. Please address these issues in a substantive way before considering any future growth regarding this project or others in this area. If you'd like to talk further, or have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Sincerely, Rob Larmon Rob Larmon roblarmonPemaii.com IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` yonam Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Street Address city Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sai flta cllairiiiiru.ccim/Agelrflda s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. Reglisteir a s a o1b1byllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the Course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Hai Nguyen From: Susan Maness <susan.maness@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 1:26 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Cyn Project Agenda Item 1 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. At this time, locations are being sought as proper areas to bank groundwater for drought periods. Your project proposes to cover up (enclose in concrete) areas that already exist to re -charge much needed water underground. On this basis alone, the project should be rejected as a conflict the City of Santa Clarita on an economic and environmental basis. Susan Maness 661-296-5728 IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas I eire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquest Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Sandra Cattell Representing Sierra Club Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* r.1661714285 ) Email sumcatt@yahoo.com Street Address 21648 teak Orchard Rd city Newhall Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_A11211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® IF01121E OII1M IIS 'Tf RUlE AIMID COIR1121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sal flta cllalriiia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commission Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, Commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir as a o1b1byllst Ilhelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be Considered a lobbyist. Ilt you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18.089. Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Linda De Vita Representing Self Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email Idevita8@no'tmail.com Street Address 20050 Hilltop C't city Santa Claritta Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_A11211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® IF01121E OII1M IIS 'Tf RUlE AIMID COIR1121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` ",a AWN Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:salnta cllalriiiia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. 'tegll,:roi'eir as a o1b1bylst l flelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. IIf you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas I eire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description MasterC ase 18.089 Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Stacy Fortner Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email s„®fortner cx yahoo.com Street Address 28 314 Lobelia Lane city Valencia Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` elw;wt. Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:sal flta cllalriitia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commission Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, Commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. 'teglisteir as a o1b1byllst Ilhelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be Considered a lobbyist. Please connpliete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneints -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coo nsidered Iparft of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Subject to be Addressed* Bouquet Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Robin Cook Representing Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 6615104578 Email justblingitl @gmail.com Street Address 28526 Hob Ct, City Saugus Written comment:* Will there be anything done about the back walls of people's homes with all the new traffic. With widening the roads it will bring traffic a lot closer to the homes. Attachments (optional) ('') If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AIIRII® 'TfiI 'Tf 'T ll-lll® ll:-OI1211® OIIIIM IIS 'T IIRU11® AIMID COIIRI1211®C'Tf„ Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir as a 4:n1ta1tayllst Ihelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Ilt you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Apartments Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Susann Rizzo Representing Self Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* 80 a..-490...10 57 Email baronessl @sbcglobal.net Street Address 25366 66 Avenida Ronada city Valencia Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. IIIDIECILA1121E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IEIF01121E OII1M IIS'Tf112UIEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the Ci'ty's agenda management system at .:salnta cllalriitia.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .0 3.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. 'teglisteir as a 4:W1ta1tayllst Ilnelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Please connplete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing., Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings., Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Master Case 18 -089 the proposed Bouquet Canyon project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Katherine Solomon Representing Sierra Club Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 661 -753 -6479 Email kpsquires@gmail.com Street Address 27742 Carnegie Ave. city Saugus Written comment: fhe Sierra Club of the Santa Claritta Valley has submitted a second comment letter (sent to you on Oct. 2, 2020) detailing serious concerns with the liquefaction hazards and hydrological inadequacies in the IEIR for this proposed project. Please refer to our recent comment letter 'for our detailed geology and hydrology concerns. ..Fhe EIR shows that having no soft -bottom channel is due to the extreme instability and potential for landslides Can site. A soft -bottom channel is necessaryy though, to preserve the Incredible amount of water recharge 'that 'this site is responsible for (SCV desperately needs this water). We do not see that this is a viable project as planned, instead we would ask that you vote to deny the project. Fhe community is in opposition 'to'this project! Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II IDIEcILA11211E'TfHA'Tf'Tf111IIEIF01121E-GOII1M IIS'Tf112UlEAIMIDCO1121121ECT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required 'to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the CI'ty for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the CI'ty during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Hai Nguyen From: Tracey Lucas < lucastudio@me.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:43 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Mr. Hai Nguyen, I am a long-time resident of Santa Clarita and I live on Bouquet Canyon, actually on the street. I'd like to write to you about my concern over the Bouquet Canyon Project. Since moving to Santa Clarita, I've seen the city change and sometimes improve. I've also watched as developments were planned, announced, presented, disputed and the public opinion ignored. As a result, Santa Clarita has become congested, overcrowded and difficult to navigate. This development of 375 houses will certainly have an impact again on our community. Bouquet Canyon already has serious challenges with dangerous traffic. As someone whose house address actually is on Bouquet Canyon, I've watched the volume of traffic increase as well as the vehicular speeds. The addition of 375 houses = at least 700 additional cars to an already overloaded thoroughfare. I do not see how straightening the canyon road will improve this. The additional traffic will also put a vehicular load onto Copper Hill. I walk my dog on our ranch early in the morning and the amount of emissions that we take in on our short walk is pretty disturbing. I can only anticipate more emissions with this development. The Bouquet Canyon Project will also effect the emergency services that will inevitably increase in need with the addition of more cars. Bouquet Canyon Road is a treacherous road to drive on. Drivers ignore speed and traffic laws on a regular basis -just count the number of crosses on our road that have increased over the years. As elementary school children, my kids took the school bus. I cannot express the anger I still feel when I think of how the bus warning signs were regularly ignored, drivers blazing right by a school bus with flashing lights and crossing children. Bouquet Canyon has struggled with water challenges for over a decade. I ask how any environmental impact study did not show the substantial and devastating impact these houses will have to a seriously depleted water table. I am not the only resident who gets our water from a well. So many of our neighbors are already forced to purchase their water because their well is now dry due to the water restrictions. How many more of the canyon residents will lose their wells? I watch the constant flow of water trucks that deliver water to LARC Ranch every single day. I cannot imagine what kind of burden this puts on a community that watches every penny. One of the reasons we purchased our ranch was the lovely feeling of the canyon, so quiet and green and beautiful. It's nothing like that now. The light pollution that will emanate from almost 400 houses and connecting streets will not only scar a once beautiful area, but will also effect the wildlife. Was this considered in any environmental impact study? Time and time again, we've watched as huge developments have been protested and built in spite of the unpopular sentiment. All in the interest of revenue for the city. This year, more than any other, California is now reaping the consequences of overpopulation and abuse of our environment. The rolling blackouts that have occurred in the past few years will only increase. The jeopardy of fires from power lines increase. Adding one firehouse per number of residences will hardly protect the vast number of people who will be added to the city population and density. I hope Mr. Nguyen, that you give careful consideration to this project; and weigh revenue over safety and quality of life. Thank you, Tracey Lucas 29835 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91390 Hai Nguyen From: Erin Anderson <eanderson624@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 5:33 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Approve the BouquetCanyon Project `II If X If"NIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Chair Hart and Members of the Planning Commission, I am a local resident of Santa Clarita and I am reaching out to express my full support for the Bouquet Canyon Project and ask that you quickly approve this project. The 375-home project will feature the addition of extensive trails with ridgeline preservation, publicly accessible parks and open space elements that maintain the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape, and EV charging stations, to name a few. In addition, the project will build the long -anticipated Bouquet canyon safety realignment which has been on the City's General Plan for nearly half a century. This public works benefit will be paid for by a private developer and will take the road away from existing homes to help alleviate traffic congestion and improve overall circulation and safety on this dangerous stretch of roadway. Overall, this project will be important to our City's economic recovery given the current pandemic -induced recession. I urge the planning commission to approve this project tonight. Thank you, Erin Anderson Hai Nguyen From: George Brodt <gbrodt@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:38 PM To: Hai Nguyen Subject: Re: Bouquet Canyon Project Update `II If Y If"NIIIINC: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hai, Congratulations on a job well done presenting the information to the Planning Commission! I really do not care about how many charging stations are provided in the Bouquet Project, but I thought that Commissioner Berlin's recommendation that handicapped parking spaces be provided at three locations in the project was counter productive. I do not think that she thought this recommendation through to a logical conclusion for the following reasons: Non -handicapped folks will not be able to park their electric vehicle (EV) in those handicapped spaces to charge their car's battery when they are using one of the hiking trails. Ms. Berlin effectively reduced the number of charging stations that normal people can use by three. How many handicapped people that own an EV do you know that go on hikes on dirt trails in and around Santa Clarita? Not very many! Unfortunately, those three handicapped charging stations will get little or no use. Thanks for listening, George Brodt -----Original Message ----- From: Hai Nguyen Sent: Oct 1, 2020 5:41 PM To: Undisclosed recipients:; Subject: Bouquet Canyon Project Update Good afternoon: You are receiving this email because you have indicated that you would like to receive notifications or have submitted a comment letter on the Bouquet Canyon Project, Master Case 18-089. The Bouquet Canyon Project was initially presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2020. The follow-up presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for October 6, 2020 at 6:00 pm. Please see the attached Agenda Packet document for the following meeting: Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2020 6:00 PM 23920 Valencia Blvd. 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ,owii:]I...d......�g�jP=k �View �eida Packet .... ..l,�........,,�........................ . ..1 ... The meeting will be conducted via Zoom. If you wish to attend and/or speak at the meeting, the instructions are at this link: Irnti:ti.;as: sair tacllaritacliti: ca.li irn2.coirm Cliti:lizeir"ns IFIiIIeCa!2.L] asax�ll` ae::::::�..� 1111�::::::�..6�0 llirnllliirne::::::llu��ue l ......................................................................................................Y......................9......................................................................................................................................t.....................................t.........................Y.t................................................................................................................................................................................. Hai Nguyen Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4365 Email: hnguyenp_sa ta-clarita.com Please connplete this forinn -to register your writtein conninneruts -to the City of Sainta Clairita Coimimissioins, iiin Iliieu of spealkiiing. Your writtein coiminneints wiIIII The coinsidered Ipairt of the officiall proceediiings. Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee* Planning Commission Meeting Date* 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:* Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number* View agendas Iheire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description* Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Your Information Cornirnissions irequiire that persons registering written cornirnents; who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. Full Name* Dirk Marks, Director of Water Resources Representing S CV Wa te r Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX 661 -297 -1600 Email dmarks@scvwa.org M-M-FITUMMI an Written comment: SCV Water appreciates the project',s proponents conducting a ,study to address our Concern regarding the potential impacts on groundwater recharge. fhe Agency acknowledges 'that 'the .study does indicate 'that 'the project would result in maintaining approximately the ,same levels of recharge compared to existing conditions. fhe Agency, nevertheless, remains concerned with the precedent that creating a concrete lined channel might set as river and 'tributary ,stream bottoms are an important ,source of groundwater recharge. Attachments (optional) ('�) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_AII211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® F011RIE-GO111MG IS 'Tf RUNE® AIMID CO11211211®CT. Speaker Signature` Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Lobbyist Registration:: Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any Individual or entity employed, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any 'task 'force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. I'teglisteir a s a o1b1byllst IIhelre :>:> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating Can behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. Ilt you wish tag speak Ibefore the Sainta Qlairita Coinniinnissioins, please coimpll to the follllo iiing iiinforrnatiioin tag the submitted tag the Coinninnissioin Seciretavy, Meeting Information Please Choose a Commission or Committee` Planning Commission Meeting Date` 10/6/2020 Please choose a meeting type:` Special Meeting Regular Meeting Please choose one: Public Participation Agenda Item Agenda Item Number` View agendas Ilhaire 1 (Only one agenda item can be selected per submission.) Description Bouquet Canyon Project Please choose one: Support Recommendation Oppose Recommendation Neutral Spealkeir Information III°°'OR.""'III"°AIll,JT • Coirnnirnniissiioirns require that speakers who represent other individuals, groups or organizations disclose that relationship. • Ilirn order to participate in the tell ecoirnll'eire irnce, Speakers irnnust provide theiir 9'ullll irnairnne and the phoirne irnuirnnlbeir they intend to use to access the irnneetlirng„ Speakers who intend to use their coirnnputer audio to pairticiipate in the irnneetlirng irnnust allso provide their phoirne irnuirnnlbeir„ Full Name` Grace Elliott Representing Self Phone XXX-XXX-XXXX* Email topazgrace@aol.com Street Address 28710 Shadow Valley I._m city Saugus Attachments (optional) If you have supplemental materials to share with the Commission please attach them, and they will be made part of the record. II II)II®CII_A11211® 'TfIIIA'Tf 'Tf11l11® IF01121E OII1M IIS 'Tf RUlE AIMID COIR1121ECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public; Comments cannot have immediate action. fhe Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled Can a subsequent Commission Agenda. Speaker Signature` 6-1 Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see below for more information). Presentation ,...Fii 1ps fhe'following presentation tips are provided in an effort to assist you in making your opinion known 'to'the Commission. Specific time allotments help ensure 'that all persons who wish to state their opinion have the opportunity to do so. IPlease take the time to organize and prepare a three (3) minute, or Iless, presentation„ 'To make the most efficient use of your time:: • Clearly .state your name and city 'for 'the record. • Clearly .state your concern - be concise. • At the conclusion of your remarks, summarize the action you desire. • If you wish to discuss an item can the Agenda, you may review the staff report and documentation 'for 'the appropriate meeting by visiting the City's agenda management system at.:salflta cllalriiila.ccim/Agelnda.:s, fhe Request to Speak form must be 'filled out and given to the Commi,s,sion Secretary prior 'to'the Agenda Item being called. If you wish to speak Can an Item not on the Agenda, the Form must be given to the Commission Secretary prior to public; participation. Should you wish not to ,speak before the Commission, you may use the Request to Register Written Comments form. Lobbyist Registration„ Under§ 7 .03.01 0 of the Santa Claritta Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with 'the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employees, retained or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointees official, any officer or employee or any 'task Force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City'for 'the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative action. lReglisteir as a o1b1byllst Ilhelre >> A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an Individual communicating on behalf of a Croup or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an Individual communicating on 'their own behalf would NO F be considered a lobbyist. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA n� PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 2, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chambers Chair Hart, Vice -Chair Masnada, Commissioner Ostrom, and Commissioner Berlin were all present. Commissioner Eichman attended remotely. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ostrom led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Rachel Clark gave the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Vice -Chair Masnada to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2020, meeting. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. MINUTE ACTION ITEM 1 DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Review of the Draft 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a finding, by minute action, that the Draft Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City's General Plan. Jerrid McKenna, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the item. There were no speakers, and no written comment cards were received. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to make a finding, by minute action, that the Draft Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Program 3udget is consistent with the General Plan. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Berlin, Hart, Masnada PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 TIME EXTENSION: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 68795 (MASTER CASE 20- 026) Consider a four-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 68795, allowing for 90,900 total square feet in four office buildings, consisting of up to four parcels and up to 104 business condominium units located at 23658 Sierra Highway. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P20-04, approving Master Case 20-026, Time Extension 20-002, to allow for a four-year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 68795, with an expiration date of May 20, 2024, to allow up to four parcels and the subdivision of airspace, and construction of four office buildings consisting of up to 104 business condominium units and 90,900 total square feet, and associated entitlements including Conditional Use Permit 07-002, Hillside Development Review Permit 07-002, and Oak Tree Permit 07-001, for the property located at 23658 Sierra Highway (Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-018-020), designated and zoned Regional Commercial and located within the Planned Development Overlay zone, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner, presented the item. Vice -Chair Masnada asked if there is a time frame of when development will move forward. Staff responded Commissioner Berlin requested change to include Vacant Residential to item L. Staff responded and agreed to change. Commissioner Berlin expressed concern over the four-year extension and prefers the two-year extension. Commissioner Eichman agreed. Staff deferred to the Applicant. The public hearing was opened at 6:18 p.m. Ron Koester, the Applicant, responded to the Commissioners questions and stated that a two- year extension is off-putting to potential buyers. Planning Commission discussed the item. Page 2 There were no speakers, and no written comment cards were received. The public hearing was closed at 6:27 p.m. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to adopt Resolution P20-04, approving Master Case 20-026, Time Extension 20-002, to allow for a four- year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 68795, with an expiration date of May 20, 2024, to allow up to four parcels and the subdivision of airspace, and construction of four office buildings consisting of up to 104 business condominium units and 90,900 total square feet, and associated entitlements including Conditional Use Permit 07-002, Hillside Development Review Permit 07- 002, and Oak Tree Permit 07-001, for the property located at 23658 Sierra Highway (Assessor's Parcel Number 2833-018-020), designated and zoned Regional Commercial and located within the Planned Development Overlay zone, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of kpproval (Exhibit A). Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Berlin, Hart, Masnada ITEM 3 BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT (MASTER CASE 18-089) Proposal for the Bouquet Canyon Project, a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements located in the community of Saugus. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff s presentation on the Project and Draft Environmental Impact Report, open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public, close the public hearing, and provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and Project issues, and continue the public hearing to July 7, 2020. Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner, and Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, presented the item. Commissioner Ostrom asked about a grading plan or any sections which show the current and future contours. City staff responded. Vice -Chair Masnada wondered about the existing Bouquet Creek, Commissioner Berlin asked to clarify a triangle portion of the project and Chair Hart asked about the Benz Road and Copper Hill Road intersection and asked to clarify the traffic flow. City staff responded. Commissioner Berlin asked to confirm the location of the carriage units. City staff responded. Masnada asked what the name of the invasive species plant material is. City staff deferred to the environmental consultant. The public hearing was opened at 7:18 p.m. Page 3 Scott Covington, representing the Applicant, spoke in favor of the item. Commissioner Berlin asked about how privacy issues are being addressed, Vice -Chair Masnada asked about the elevation difference between PA-1 and adjacent homes. Scott Covington responded. Commissioner Berlin confirmed that larger trees would be used as shields for houses on the hill and brought up her concern for the safety of homes on David Way. Commissioner Berlin also confirmed that the Applicant is open to meet with people to share concerns. Scott Covington and City staff responded. Commissioner Berlin asked if construction barriers that are shaded for the homes that are not part of the Project. Scott Covington responded. Commissioner Berlin suggested reduced working hours, 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on weekends, due to proximity of residences. Scott Covington agreed. Commissioner Berlin asked if the private recreation centers are open to all residents in the community. Scott Covington and City staff responded. Commissioner Berlin asked how many of the fuel -efficient spaces would be operational at the time of opening at the trailhead. Scott Covington confirmed that six would be fully functional. Commissioner Berlin inquired about the number of bicycle parking spaces. Quantity and locations were discussed. Commissioner Berlin asked if there would be sufficient guest parking, asked if the HOA CC&Rs would address landscaping due to it being in a high fire area, and if thought could be put into how it would work for an emergency evacuation. City staff and Scott Covington responded. Ian Pari addressed traffic concerns raised by Commissioner Berlin and Chair Hart. Andre Hollings, Troy Hooper, and Barbara Myler spoke in support of the Item. David Goldstein spoke in a neutral position. City staff responded to concerns raised by the speaker. There were 11 written comments in support, two neutral, and one opposed all electronically submitted. Commissioner Berlin asked if the carriage units could be rented out. Scott Covington responded. Commissioner Ostrom requested the applicant and City staff to provide a full floor plan of the rowhouses, artist renderings from within the neighborhood, and a cross-section to illustrate the ridgeline eyesight at the next meeting. Page 4 Chair Hart requested more discussion on traffic flow. Commissioner Berlin asked Ian Pari to look closer at Kathleen Avenue and Calhaven Drive traffic changes. Traffic calming was discussed. Commissioner Eichman asked what the Project would look like if the ridgeline was not taken down and how many pools there are for the Project. Commissioner Berlin asked if there will be bicycle parking at the recreation center. Scott Covington responded. Commissioner Berlin requested that the additional Project and EIR comments that are received be provided. City staff responded. The public hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to provide direction to City staff on the hearing schedule and Project issues, and continue the public hearing to July 7, 2020. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Berlin, Hart, Masnada PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Jason Crawford gave the Planning Manager's report. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports from the Planning Commissioners. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers for public participation. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ostrom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. and Commissioner Berlin seconded the motion. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA n� PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 7, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chambers Chair Hart, Vice -Chair Masnada, Commissioner Ostrom, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Berlin were all present. FLAG SALUTE Vice -Chair Masnada led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kendall Irvin gave the Secretary Announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2020 meeting.. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1 MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126; INITIAL STUDY 18-002; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2018121009 Proposal for the Bouquet Canyon Project, a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements located in the community of Saugus. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item to their regularly scheduled meeting on August 18, 2020. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, presented the item. Commissioner Berlin requested to receive the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), eratta sheet? (13:28) and response to comments as early as possible. The public hearing was opened at 6:05 p.m. Speaker, Keith Jacobs, spoke in opposition to the Project. Commissioner Eichman requested the public to have an opportunity to have a physical presence at the next meeting. Jason Crawford, Planning Manager, responded. The public hearing was closed at 6:10 p.m. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to continue the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 18, 2020. said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-U. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dan Masnada, Vice -Chair SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Commissioner AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Berlin, Hart, Masnada ITEM 2 MASTER CASE 19-204: ADR 19-020, CUP 19-006, DR 19-013, MUP19-021 UN Development Properties LLC, is requesting an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and Minor Use Permit to construct and operate of a self - storage facility at the southwest corner of Centre Pointe Parkway and Diamond Place, in the City of Santa Clarita. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P20-06, approving Master Case 19-170, consisting of Architectural Design Review 19-020, Conditional Use Permit 19-006, Development Review 19-013, and Minor Use Permit 19-021 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 130,060 square -foot, 56-foot tall self -storage facility, located at the southwest corner of Centre Pointe Parkway and Diamond Place (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2836-070-002 and 2836-070-005) within the Business Park zone of the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Mikaela Manion, Assistant Planner, presented the item and noted that the incorrect Master Case number was listed in the agenda report and should be Master Case 19-170. Page 2 Vice -Chair Masnada inquired if it is the only three-story edifice in the area and if it would interfere with views for other properties. He also asked about what area the Porta Bella Specific Plan applies to. Staff responded. Commissioner Ostrom commented on the architecture, traffic, and the jobs housing balance. Staff responded. Other multi -level storage facility locations were discussed. Commissioner Berlin requested that Building & Safety condition number 14 be revised to include two Electric Vehicle parking spaces, operational at opening, to allow for one to be used as an accessible parking space. Staff responded. The public hearing was opened at 6:33 p.m. Bruce Jordan, Project architect with UN Development, spoke in support of the Project and responded to the Commissioner comments accepting the change to the Building & Safety condition number 14. Commissioner Berlin asked if there were restrictions on types of materials to be stored. Bruce Jordan responded. Art Salazar, with UN Development, spoke in support of the Project. The public hearing was closed at 6:48 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to adopt Resolution P20-06, approving Master Case 19-170, consisting of Architectural Design Review 19-020, Conditional Use Permit 19-006, Development Review 19-013, and Minor Use Permit 19-021 to permit the construction and operation of an approximately 130,060 square -foot, 56-foot tall self -storage facility, located at the southwest corner of Centre Pointe Parkway and Diamond Place (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2836-070-002 and 2836-070-005) within the Business Park zone of the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) and aforementioned revisions. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Commissioner AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Berlin, Hart, Masnada Page 3 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Jason Crawford gave the Planning Manager's report and thanked Kendall Irvin for stepping in and assisting with the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports from the Planning Commissioners. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Addressing the Commission were Christian Olmos, Amanda Sinks, Christine Okamoto and Jessica Conrad. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ostrom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and Commissioner Eichman seconded the motion. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA n� PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, August 18, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chambers Chair Hart, Vice -Chair Masnada, Commissioner Ostrom, and Commissioner Berlin were present. Commissioner Eichman was absent. FLAG SALUTE Vice -Chair Masnada led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kendall Irvin gave the Secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Vice -Chair Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1 MASTER CASE 18-089 (BOUQUET CANYON PROJECT): ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 18-010; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-004; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-009; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 18-001; LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 19-017; OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 4) 19-003; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-001; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82126; INITIAL STUDY 18-002; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2018121009 Proposal for the Bouquet Canyon Project, a residential community consisting of up to 375 attached and detached, two-story, for -sale housing units with related infrastructure, dedicated open space areas, trails, recreation areas, and landscape elements located in the community of Saugus. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Resolution P20-08, recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2018121009) prepared for the project, and approve Resolution P20-09, recommending the City Council approve the Bouquet Canyon Project under Master Case 18-089, including Architectural Design Review 18-010, Conditional Use Permit 18-004, Development Review 18-009, Hillside Development Review (Class 4) 18-001, Landscape Plan Review 19-017, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 19-003, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-001, and Tentative Tract Map 82126, subject to the conditions of approval. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, presented on the item. Staff s recommendation is to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow time to finalize items with the Applicant. Commissioner Ostrom has requested that a site grading plan, a row -town residential unit configuration, floor plans, and a side -by -side channel comparison be provided. He also requested confirmation that the local water agency agrees with the proposal of the hard -bottom channel. Both Commissioners Ostrom and Masnada expressed concerns regarding the hard -bottom versus the soft -bottom channels. The public hearing was opened at 6:10 p.m. Due to technical difficulties, speakers were unable to speak during the public hearing and were given the opportunity to speak during the Public Participation portion of the meeting. The public hearing was closed at 6:15 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to continue the item to a date uncertain. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner AYES: Dennis Ostrom, Renee Berlin, Philip Hart, Dan Masnada ABSENT: Lisa Eichman Page 2 ITEM 2 MASTER CASE 19-089; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-001, ZONE CHANGE 19- 002, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 19-009, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-003, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT 19-008, AND MINOR USE PERMIT 19-012 A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and associated entitlements for a 156,060 square -foot, three-story self -storage facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P20-07, denying with prejudice Master Case 19-089, consisting of General Plan Amendment 19-001, Zone Change 19-002, Architectural Design Review Permit 19-009, Condition Use Permit 19-03, Development Review Permit 19-008, and Minor Use Permit 19-012, for the construction of a three-story, 156,060 square -foot storage facility that exceeds 35 feet in height (57 feet, 4 inches), located at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Valley Center Drive (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2849-024-045 and 2849-024-046), in the City of Santa Clarita, California. Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner, presented on the item. Commissioner Berlin inquired about the height of the surrounding existing commercial properties. Staff responded. Vice -Chair Masnada requested clarification of "denying with prejudice" and the distinction between a Conditional Use Permit and a Minor Use Permit. Staff and City Attorney, Christina Burrows, responded. The public hearing was opened at 6:34 p.m. Hunt Braly, James Goodman and James Orr, representatives of the Applicant, and Hugh Horn, the Applicant, spoke in favor of the item. The Commissioners expressed concerns over the elevations and building scale, in respect to surrounding commercial buildings, traffic with the possibility of a secondary driveway and discussed with City Staff, including Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, and the Applicant Team. Vice -Chair Masnada asked about the number of elevators in the facility. James Goodman responded. Vice -Chair Masnada commended the Applicant, and City Staff, on the esthetics of the building and the possibility of traffic reduction. Chair Hart and Commissioner Berlin asked about other prospective uses and reasons other interested parties did not move forward. The Applicant team and City Staff responded. Vice -Chair Masnada asked to clarify the extent of the Applicant's ownership of surrounding properties. He also asked about the possibility of reducing the elevations. The Applicant responded. Page 3 The Commission, City Staff, and the Applicant further discussed the scale of the building, additional driveways, and traffic. The Commission has requested that Staff work with the Applicant to revise the architecture. The public hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Berlin moved the staff recommendation. Vice -Chair Masnada seconded. After discussion, said motion was denied by a roll -call vote of 1-3. A motion was made by Vice -Chair Masnada and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom, for Staff to return to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 15, 2020, with a resolution recommending the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Project, and the Proposed Conditions of Approval. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Jason Crawford gave the Planning Manager's report. Commissioner Berlin requested a meeting forecast through the end of 2020. Jason responded. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT Vice -Chair Masnada mentioned that he may not be present for the regularly scheduled October 20, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. There were no further reports from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Sandra Cattell spoke in opposition of the Bouquet Canyon Project Master Case 18-089. No further speakers were present for Public Participation. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ostrom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:57 p.m. and Commissioner Berlin seconded the motion. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 4 0=0 U. V yj "w. o U4 L ce LAi IL I z U z 0 z u U j/ / o rr.. A/ , ARV, W" OVA // S, u // Ow, yr / / k rye,.. -::... ;'SM Ir ni f �- µ v.tr.. '111 /J( J/ cald,ry ,�I' 1/4 `�l E AR �jm � AAA,, t7hrG,1,r�... ��� /�%%��i/%%1/'' �� %/Ii/%i; i(/° / '%%1 f fj / r , I' / r �'r Irrrrrrr a i -.., r , . / I t/ r ',,^ o %/ '11f y y !°,� / ' i G///%�/�i / 7J 43i/ r ,l� I ,',.'v, 'u rr, i s,; (, ' r/r / 1 "All ov / Ir//v �� ✓� / �" i % // 1 / / ut / r r , J r ( kt /� l� / rdi / / „ r i 1 / ���i i / 1� ' /� j / %1J/,` /��1, ri,%', rotor1; Q3 'i —a�,,,,% /� ill rl'/ / ' / J'� Go,w r // ///i / /� a /ri�i Io i// %i% //9 �u ✓ „✓ e f / / / I �, / / F x LU �� is it Klid. ,; y r Ica �u n I r , I rr & Z< et / / l / Id C w �r" �.r t JI/r cy / y' lipr' K: r > ; 1r , i.^ ,� ,r r' �. � I o, I cy, 0 z , fig �i Ali I x 0 in x 0 z tu tu LIJ LIJ X 0 CIA Ali 'UA T. 0 fL UJ z 0 z > Lu y. z 0 o 0 Lo Z. Zv uj qf Cr CY o W Z o 0 U X uj in, uj a 0 Z F- 0 >11 �- z z 0 U W >� ') �m L E, Lij W F- < UCIJ 0 z < , V� da ELI ru LL �Z z 0 im \ °� � � \\©�.� \ I U < LLJ :) cy / ��-� \ � � � 0 z I