Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - DAVID MARCH PARK PLANS CONTR PROJ P4027Agenda Item: 19 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Li ' DATE: June 25, 2024 SUBJECT: DAVID MARCH PARK, PROJECT P4027 - PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT: Public Works PRESENTER: Shannon Pickett RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for the David March Park, Project P4027. 2. Find the David March Park Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Addendum complies with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulation, Article 11, Sections 15162 and 15164, for changes to the original project. 3. Award the construction contract to Urban Habitat, in the amount of $9,172,460 and authorize a contingency in the amount of $917,246, for a total contract amount not to exceed $10,089,706. 4. Award the professional services contract to Converse Consultants, to provide materials inspection services, in the amount of $250,000 and authorize a contingency in the amount of $25,000, for a total contract amount not to exceed $275,000. 5. Extend the current contract and authorize an increased expenditure authority for construction support services with Psomas, in the amount of $596,786 and authorize a contingency in the amount of $59,679, for a total additional contract amount not to exceed $656,465. 6. Appropriate one-time funds in the amount of $120,000 from the Park Dedication - Quimby Fund (Fund 305) to the David March Park, Project P4027, expenditure account P4027305- 516101 and $570,800 from the Facilities Fund (Fund 723) to the David March Park, Project, Project P4027, expenditure account P4027723-516101. 7. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all documents, subject to City Attorney approval. Page 1 Packet Pg. 270 BACKGROUND This project will provide for an expansion and additional amenities to David March Park, originally built by The County of Los Angeles (County) in 2004. The park is located on a 13.2- acre lot on Via Joyce Drive, as shown on the attached Location Map, and was incorporated into the City of Santa Clarita (City) in June 2016. Phase I was completed by the County and included the build out of approximately two acres of the northern portion of the property including a playground, fitness zone, horseshoe pits, picnic tables, restroom building, and parking. This project includes improvements identified in the David March Park Phase II Master Plan, which was originally developed by the County and updated by the City in March 2022 in order to meet City standards. The construction of this project will include improvements to the existing park as well as the development of an additional five acres of the park property. Shade canopies, one basketball court with sport court lighting, lighted walkways, and expanded parking will be added to the existing park. Improvements to the expanded lower -level area include a baseball field and backstop with shaded spectator stands and sport field lighting, an additional restroom building, an Americans with Disabilities Act -compliant walkway between activity levels, exercise stairs, security lighting along walkways, an additional parking lot, shaded community gathering areas, one trash enclosure, and landscape and irrigation improvements. Pickleball courts were evaluated during the conceptual design phase for David March Park. The expansion area of the park will include one baseball field, but does not have adequate space to accommodate pickleball courts. However, four new permanent pickleball courts were recently added to Bouquet Canyon Park and four overlay courts were added to the tennis courts located at Skyline Ranch Park, which opened in March 2024. These new courts are located within two miles of David March Park. Additionally, staff continues to evaluate feasible park locations for pickleball courts, which includes future park projects. Civic Art will also be incorporated into the project with a designated budget of $108,389. These funds will be used to design, construct, and install public artwork at David March Park in coordination with the Arts Commission and the Public Art Planning and Selection process. This project exemplifies the City's commitment to improving the quality of life of its residents and supports the Develop, Enhance, and Rehabilitate Park Features and Facilities theme identified in the Parks and Recreation 5-Year Plan. This project also supports the Building and Creating Community theme of the City's five-year strategic plan, Santa Clarita 2025. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements were completed when the Plum Canyon Park (renamed to David March Park, May 28, 2002) combined Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were approved and adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting on July 16, 2002. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 15, 2002 (SCH 92001021050). Page 2 Packet Pg. 271 An Addendum to the IS/MND was prepared to evaluate the addition of six stadium lights, associated with the previously approved sports field, and a set of exercise stairs (Modified Project), which were not included in the original project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Addendum are available in the City Clerk's Reading File. The Addendum concluded there is substantial evidence to determine that: 1. the Modified Project does not represent a substantial change from the previously approved project evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND; 2. no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken; and 3. the Modified Project has not introduced new information of substantial importance that was not previously known. The Modified Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND. No new mitigation measures are recommended in addition to those adopted at the time the 2002 IS/MND was approved that would further reduce Project impacts. The 2002 IS/MND, when considered in conjunction with this Addendum, provides adequate documentation, pursuant to CEQA for the Approved and Modified Projects, without further reporting or approval required. Solicitation Process - Construction Contract An invitation to bid was prepared and published twice in The Signal newspaper, on April 18 and 25, 2024, and was posted on the City's website. A total of four bids were submitted to the City and opened by Purchasing on May 24, 2024. Each of the bids included a base bid and three bid alternates. The basis for award was the total for the base bid. The results of the total base bids are shown below: Company Location Bid Amount Urban Habitat La Quinta, CA $8,225,973 Staples Construction Company, Inc. Ventura, CA $10,195,540 RC Becker and Sons, Inc. Santa Clarita, CA $10,546,966 Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. Covina, CA $11,540,090 Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Urban Habitat, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $10,089,706, which includes $8,225,973 for the base bid, $946,487 for bid alternates one and two, and authorizing a contingency in the amount of $917,246, for a total contract amount not to exceed $10,089,706. This contractor possesses a valid state contractor's license and is in good standing with the Contractors State License Board. Staff reviewed the bid response for accuracy and conformance to the contract documents and found it to be complete. The bid proposal adheres to the project's plans and specifications and is available in the City Clerk's Reading File. While the City maintains a Support of Local Businesses policy that can be utilized by the City Council when warranted, the City is governed by the California Public Contract Code with regard to public works project procurement. In this type of procurement, the California Public Contract Code does not permit a city to utilize a Support of Local Businesses policy and instead Page 3 Packet Pg. 272 requires the contract be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Solicitation Process - Materials Testing Services Contract A Request for Proposal (RFP) for materials testing services was prepared and posted on BidNet on April 24, 2024. The RFP asked firms to identify their relevant experience with similar projects and demonstrate their approach for this project. On May 24, 2024, two firms submitted proposals. Staff reviewed the proposals and, based on their evaluations, scored the firms on a 100-point scale as follows: Rank Company 1. Converse Consultants 2. RMA Group, Inc. Location Score Monrovia, CA 82 Carson, CA 80 The scoring system was based on the following criteria: responsiveness to the RFP and thoroughness of proposal, consultant qualifications and overall project team experience, proposed methodology and ability to meet the scope of work, project understanding, and references. Converse Consultants demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the project needs and provided a detailed scope of work and approach to the project. Based on their experience with similar projects, and the completeness of their proposal for this project, staff recommends awarding the contract for materials inspection services to Converse Consultants. The proposal is available in the City Clerk's Reading File. California Government Code 4526 prescribes selection of architectural and engineering services to be based on demonstrated competence and professional qualification necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required and does not authorize the selection of professional architectural and engineering services based on cost. City staff was able to reach an agreement with Converse Consultants at a fair and reasonable price. Civil Engineering and Geotechnical Services The City Council awarded a design contract for a total amount not to exceed $1,276,760 to Psomas at the December 13, 2022, City Council meeting. Psomas was selected through a competitive RFP process and is the Engineer of Record for the project. In order to provide appropriate construction and design support throughout construction, it is recommended that the existing contract with Psomas be increased by a total of $656,465, including contingency. This increase will allow Psomas to provide construction support at regular meetings, review submittals, respond to requests for information, and address design issues as the project is constructed. The proposal is available in the City Clerk's Reading File. The requested budget appropriations will provide for the bid alternates, which includes the exercise stairs and additional parking, as shown on the attached Bid Alternates Exhibit. The requested contingency for the David March Park contracts will cover the cost of unforeseen Page 4 Packet Pg. 273 site conditions such as potential utility conflicts and fees, abandoned utilities not shown in record drawings, field adjustments, additional work requested by the City, and approved change orders requested by the contractor or consultants. The remaining project funds will cover all anticipated project administrative costs, including staff time, project management, public works inspections, environmental inspections and support, utility fees, and labor compliance monitoring. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Upon approval of the recommended actions, budget will be increased by $120,000 in expenditure account P4027305-516101 (Park Dedication - Quimby Funds) and $570,800 in expenditure account P4027723-516101 (Facilities Fund) for a total construction budget of $11,900,000 to support the recommended contracts and associated project costs. ATTACHMENTS Bid Alternates Exhibit Location Map Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Bid Proposal for Urban Habitat (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Proposal for Converse Consultants (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Proposal for Psomas (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 5 Packet Pg. 274 19.a BERRY PL. /®- ®- _ EXISTING O � PARK U► 1 0 / I ADRIEN E wAY ► / EXPANDED ► / PARK AREA � ► I ARTHUR CT. ► ► G � j I EXERCISE cSTAIRS m®� i♦ i � ♦�' ♦�� N PL. ; ♦ ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA PLUM CANYON RD. David March Park `�� Bid Alternates o Exhibit PS O M A DATE: 8/3/2024 REVISED ON: JOB No:1SA4272300 Packet Pg. 275 c"' of SANTA GLARITA N Location Map for David March Park Feet 0 75 150 300 Project P4027 I I I I I I Legend Street centerlines developed & maintained by City of Santa Clarita GIS David March Park The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant the accuracy of the data and assumes no liability for any errors or omissions. 0 Parcel Boundary Map prepared by: City of Santa Clarita GIS Division Q:\PR0JECTS\PW\221102a1\DMP Phase 3 I��ZN RODGERS DR w J Q R� S Uq� OR cj, ,41V 1V P� JqY cgRRO - `Isq � oR 3e �McgN YON w v 4V 19.b S K,� N PL J A4 IL U Q Q Location Ma o a SAVE PC ��NYG 0 0 J Bono cP"��" N E ZI Packet Pg. 276 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Plum Canyon County Park Prepared For: Department of Parks and Recreation 433 South Vermont Avenue, 4th Floor Los Angeles, California 90020.1 975 Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3920•A Los Angeles, California 90071 EDAW El PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared For: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation 433 South Vermont Avenue, 4" Floor Los Angeles, California 90020 Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. 3780 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 250 Los Angeles, California 90010 January 2002 Table of Contents PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK PROJECT ' FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pa,2e ' CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS........................................................................................ iii 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................1-1 ' Introduction......................................................................................................................1-1 ProjectObjectives............................................................................................................1-1 ProjectLocation...............................................................................................................1-1 ' Background......................................................................................................................1-1 Descriptionof the Project................................................................................................1-1 Schedule...........................................................................................................................1-7 2.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST......................................................................................2-1 CEQA Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study.................................................2-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected....................................................................2-7 Determination...................................................................................................................2-7 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..............................................................................2-8 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................3-1 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................3-1 AgriculturalResources......................................................................................................3-2 AirQuality .......................................................................................................................3-2 Biological Resources........................................................................................................3-5 CulturalResources...........................................................................................................3-9 Geologyand Soils..........................................................................................................3-10 Hazards...........................................................................................................................3-11 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................3-13 LandUse and Planning..................................................................................................3-14 MineralResources..........................................................................................................3-15 Noise..............................................................................................................................3-15 Populationand Housing.................................................................................................3-18 PublicServices...............................................................................................................3-18 Recreation......................................................................................................................3-20 Transportation/Circulation.............................................................................................3-21 Utilitiesand Service Systems.........................................................................................3-23 Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................3-24 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS....................................................................................................4-1 5.0 PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED AND REFERENCES.......................................5-1 ' Plurn Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i OWN,01,1J,0 )0.°:S.$AI Fable of Contents PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK PROJECT ' •FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION "I I 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) Page COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSES...........................................6-1 7,0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM..................................7-1 APPENDIX A VISTA Information Solutions, Site Assessment Plus Report (Hazardous Materials/Waste Sites APPENDIX B Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Results LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Regional Location Map.............................................................................................1-2 Figure2 Site Plan.....................................................................................................................1-4 Figure3 Views of the Project Site.................................:.........................................................2-3 Figure4 Existing On -Site Features..........................................................................................2-4 Figure 5 Existing Single -Family Residences West of the Project Site....................................2-5 Figure 6 Single -Family Residences North and South of the Project Site ................................2-6 Figure 7 Plum Canyon County Park Biological Resources ..... :............................................... 3-7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................................3-3 Table 2 , SCAQMD Air Quality Impact Significance Thresholds...........................................3-3 Table 3 Project -Related Construction Emissions...................................................................3-4 Table 4 Typical Construction Noise Levels........................................................................3-16 Table 5 Plum Canyon County Park — Trip Generation Estimates........................................3-21 Table 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.........................................................7-2 Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ii 0100PI.M climnn V 4a friiffla9 d e 01:510:101S All Clarifications and Revisions CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS Minor revisions have been made to the Plum Canyon County Park Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). These revisions have not resulted in a change in analysis and/or conclusions of the Final IS/MND. This section identifies the changes to the document that resulted from public comments on the Draft IS/MND. Deleted text is shown with an oveer-str-ike, and new text is bold, as presented below. The Final IS/MND reflects these revisions and text changes and is shown without the redlined text. Since the circulation of the Draft IS/MND, KEA Environmental, Inc. has merged with EDAW, Inc. All references to KEA Environmental in the document have been changed to EDAW. The following is added at the end of the first paragraph on page 1-1 of the Draft IS/MND: This Final IS/MND also presents revisions to Section 3.IV., Biological Resources, and Section 3.XIII., Public Services (Fire Protection), in response to some of the written comments (see Section 6.0) received on the Draft IS/MND, which was circulated for public and governmental agency review from February 13, 2001 through March 14, 2001, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Section 7.0). Mr. Larry Hensley's telephone number listed under "3. Contact Person and Phone Number:" on page 2-1 of the Draft IS/MND is changed as follows: (213) 738-2-1-1-82965 The first paragraph under "10. Other agencies whose approval is required:" on page 2-2 of the Draft IS/MND is revised as follows: Prior to project construction, permits from may need to be obtained from the two state regulatory agencies identified below. The required permits are for the proposed construction in an area identified as =%vatere-ekhe United -States'= "CDFG-jurisdictional drainages" (see Section 3.IV, Biological Resources, for discussion) and for surface waters (see Section 3.VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). Section 3.IV., Biological Resources (a-c) on pages 3-6 to 3-8 of the Draft IS/MND, is revised as follows: Less Than Significant Impact. A—gener'al-Two biological reconnaissance survevs was -were conducted by an KEA EDAW, inc. (KEAEDAW) biologist for the Plum Canyon County Park site on November 15, 2000, and April 4. 2001; the latter was conducted to prepare response to comments. The reconnaissance survevs focused on determining the presence or potential for significant biological resources on br adjacent to the site. Vegetation communities and biological resources are documented in Figure 7. Vegetation on site consists p4matily-of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed (Lotus scoparius), with scattered individuals of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Native and 4nonnative plant species interspersed between the native shrub species in this habitat include horehound (Marrubium vulgare), pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens), black mustard (Brassica nigra), red -stem filaree (Erntliunt cieutarium), Shepherd's nurse (C'apsella hurva-pnstnric). clover (Tri/oliuut sp.), Russian thistle (Salvnla iherica), goldfields (Losthenia sp.), popcorn flower (Pla gins nbothlvs s2A gaiania (Crania sp.)Lpectocarva (Pectoca! y sp.), cudweed (C;nanhnlium sp.). and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). A narrow band of unvegetated land occurs along the western and southern boundaries of the project site, as mapped in Figure 7. Within the disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, there arc two narrow (oneto(ltree- feet -wide) drainages that have been mapped as "waters .i-t-th---N;nilc4i-StutesCDFC-jurisdictional areas" due to the presence of a well-defined bed and bank associated with the drainages (i.e., a distinctly incised channel) and the presence of an "ordinary Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ill OIOOSPInaCtn.unY,�lrtUnnllJot O!/:JY1.l0�� I�( Clarifications and Revisions high water mark," which thefioFty4efinesis defined, in part, as a "destruction of terrestrial vegetation" (e.g., the lack of vegetation within portions of the drainage that was observed during site reconnaissance). Anal sis of these drahrages by the U.S. Army Canis of Engineers (Corps) determined that they did not fall within the Coms' regulatory latory Jurisdiction; therefore, no federally protected wetlands would be affected by the proposed nroiect. However, -the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducted a separate field analysis and determined that it would take regulatory jurisdiction over the channels. These drainages were typically bare; some areas at the bottom of the channel support non-native grasses. These two drainages merge to form a wider and more deeply cut "waters -ef-the-United Stt+tesCDFG-iurisdictional" area . These drainages begin in the vicinity of the proposed tot lot and group picnic areas; and extend to the south. ire U.S: tV PF a+t►eeFS (EeFJ*)-was eentaeted-Fegafd ut+fied dra4mges-the Get is itas deterFt�ined that-titc�proposeci pFejeclt-wettid-stet-diseliart-o-dFedged4 fill-nmtt4io s4nte ct "wt}tet-ekhe Lt+}trod-Stectes=eF-ntrt+djaee}►t-wetlauc#---Addrtietm , the (def+teed-ley-the-EeFt3s-os�nounQv+t, tl>le-iselAteddr{ated}-inter^- ") " _ ent U.S. S. 9,. ae-Faun-Riling-found thi Hhe-Gerps-does-net-#tave-jurtsdieti he-G can teFAet. 44ieNfore-tlie-firepose(l-project-"iot-subjee"o-Gog)s4udsdic4ien-tnider.Seci:oii 404-oPtiL-C4eun-Water-,Aet; and Seetiett-404-permit-would-riot-be-Fegtti ed (Corps 20nri.k2-11ew9V2F; iit1pNet5—tE)—tiiE'S0—dfeiinat;E'S mayAlthough the Coms has not taken reeulatorv_iurisdiction on the; proposed project, impacts to these draintiacs would require permits from the-Gsli€emia-Departiiwn CDFG) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a 401 permit, respectively-depen(lin,j-oti-witether-or-notpacts-te4tese drainages). Since these drainages total less than one feuFthgcnth of an acre, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant but would require mitigation at a 1.5 to 1 ratio (1.5 acres of mitigation for each acre of impact) in order to comply with the "no net loss" policy of CDFG. The total area of Impact associated with the CDFG- jurisdictional drainages on site is 0.046 acre; therefore, based on the 1.5.1 mitigation ratio, 0.069 acre of mitigation would be required. The disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat continues off -site along the relatively flat topography to the cast. Within this adjacent off -site area is a sandy wash, which would qualify as another "waters of the t' 'ted-8mtes;'CDFG- jurisdictional drainage, as shown in Figure 7. This wash is also associated with small patches of riparian vegetation in the form of mule fat scrub (Baccharis salicifolia). Sandy wash habitat within the region is suitable for the federal and state -listed endangered sicnder-homed spineflower (Dodecahelna leptoceras). As currently ' designed, the proposed project would not impact the wash, and, therefore, no impacts would occur to any population of slender -homed spineflower, or the riparian habitat within the drainage. ' One salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) occurs off -site from the southeast end of the project area (Figure 7). Intact coastal sage scrub occurs on the slopes to the cast of the project site. California sagebrush is the dominant species in this area, with smaller pockets of white sage (Salvia apiana), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and buckwheat. The California anateatcher (l'nliunrila calilornica californica), a federally listed threatened species, was not observed during either site reconnaissance visit. However. based on innut by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IUSFWS), focused survevs for the California gnatcatcher were recommended for the site and within all suitable viceetation within 300 feet of the proposed development. In response to USFWS recommendations, the County conducted focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed or detected during any of the focused surveys. The absence of the gnatcatcher may be attributed to the isolated nature of the project site and the high level of urban development in the area. T'he disturbed nature of the nroiect site su?nests that mieratory bird species would not likely nest within the disturbed coastal sane scrub habitat on site. However, due to the low potential for bird species covered under the iNlieratory Bird 'treaty Act to nest on site, the Los Angeles Countv Department of Park and Recreation would restrict all vegetation removal of suitable nesting habitat to the non -breeding season (generally September 1 through February 28). Nesting habitat for the majority of migratory bird species typically consists of native scrub species within the vicinity of the project site, such as California sagebrush, buckwheat, and white sage. Vegetation of at least one meter in height offers the optimal r tlrl^}ftWtt �=@j{U1W1trC liC{rAStM'tIM;`tr(!�i-cStt'iitNFc-t�v�'irt[ltePj-if4rh`tie-Ad()@rfrrtCRt-t1 iiW-aktlliyri�PYt�Rselei^Ai31rK'ts'EtM -ffi= rNtrrlc'rr'3'i tettc�+rrltr,-Ford-ttriistryz-(�.rt+rrt+ref-bc+>T1r:,�elrs-Srparirratrt�i=Perris-er�l-itrereeriorrrlarrrrary-?Ar�9tlt�, j—?re+it;,'tt�e�iirc{rrtricrgy-i7c�7.}-went:-ontF�ttmyt+�rrt-uotrtysiriv�tataetkrafoot-pr+eHe-ttr�e»;►�1c+;tnK-a�itrpt'art>d-�cxrti-e:esrte�ardirio iris ' jrrrr.,d��tirHktwrs H�tut�e{ wcurr art iitr4 4�iunter-ttrr trun-star 1oi ltrrt+liitti-wtrie#r+wrFsstrad an-Jernrory A}r290 ruterthat4he (=rNT>�tvr+-tnri-truaajruikhelirrir•ewer•-ikrtate�hwaler��k ttre-t�,S: Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page iv 01M P&M AtmoH Vtglm /fieap Joe OMM0: 10.•. q ,01 Clarifications and Revisions nesting habitat for most bird species. However, there are some ground -nesting species that can use shorter vegetation, such as small shrubs or tall grasses, as protective cover for their nests. As previously stated, the disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat on site (i.e., sub -meter height) does not provide optimal nesting habitat for migratory bird species, particularly when highly suitable habitat occurs off -site to the east. The presence of this off -site optimal nesting habitat would likely result in the majority of the nesting activity to occur in these off -site areas rather than within the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive slant and animal snccies on site, as previously mentioned, no federally protected wetlands would be affected by the Proposed proicct. However, the following mitigation/avoidance measures would minimize impacts to the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages that would be eliminated from the project site and impacts to rweviously unidentified biological resources if observed during project construction. ilIWLation Neasures ' iN9-IV.1 The County shall mitigate impacts to the CDFGjurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee: The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off - site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve. ' ;yt-IV.2_If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February IS through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300 foot ' buffer from the limits of grading no more than IS days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present: If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits ofgrading, construction activities may proceed During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of construction: If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ' ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Section 3.IV., Biological Resources (d-f) on page 3;rof the Draft IS/MND, is revised as follows: Less Than Significant impact. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and west; and by a ,. major road (Plum Canyon Road) to the south. The site itself is relatively disturbed and does not provide optimal habitat for resident or migratory snccies in the region. Impacts to migratory birds would be minimized by restricting vegetation removal of suitable nesting habitat to the non -breeding season (generally September I through February 28).The location of the project site adjacent to pre-existing development would not substantially interfere with the movement of any wildlife species through the area. Additionally, California's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) does not currently encompass this portion of Los Angeles County, and the County has not designated any portion of the site as part of a County -designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or state preservation/conservation guidelines. No mitigation measures are necessary. I ' Section 3.XIII, Public Services (a — Fire Protection), on page 3 J1.71of the Draft IS/MND is revised to add the following at the end of the fourth sentence: The implementation of the project would be in accordance with the latest County Fire Department codes and guidelines, including, but not limited to the following: • Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase shall be addressed at the building fire plan check. • Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all weather surface of not less than the prescribed width, unobstructed, clear -to- ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page v ol0o3PLr..CrrnnnN 1cY+'imrl7,la ot:sn; to:1 nt Ll 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION 1.0 Project Description The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15063, 15070, and 15071 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This document summarizes and addresses the results of the Initial Study prepared to determine if any significant environmental effects would occur from the proposed development of Plum Canyon County Park in the community of Saugus, immediately outside the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita, as shown in Figure 1. This Final IS/MND also presents revisions to Section 3.IV., Biological Resources, and Section 3.XIII., Public Services (Fire Protection), in response to some of the written comments (see Section 6.0) received on the Draft IS/MND, which was circulated for public and governmental agency review from February 13, 2001 through March 14, 2001, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Section 7.0). PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the project, as identified by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, is to develop a new park that would provide passive and active year-round recreation opportunities to serve the local residential community. Specifically, the project objective is to provide a local park with a service radius of up to one-half mile. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in an unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles, known as the community of Saugus. The project site, which is approximately 13 acres, is located at 2822 North Via Joyce Drive in a recently developed residential area, immediately east of the City of Santa Clarita boundaries. The project site is bounded by Plum Canyon Road on the south, Via Joyce Drive on the west, residential lots on the northwest, and by a City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) utility easement on the east. BACKGROUND On November 3, 1992 and November 5, 1996, the voters of Los Angeles County approved "Proposition A" assessment measures which provide funding for the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District to develop and improve facilities to meet the diversified needs of the citizens of Los Angeles County. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately 7 of the 13 acres of undeveloped land into a passive and active year-round public park; the remaining six acres would remain undeveloped. The project site is comprised of two relatively flat pads, one in the northern end and the other in the southern end of the project site; correspondingly, the proposed project would be divided into two phases. Funding for Phase II is not available at this time; however, for the purpose of this environmental document, Phase II is assumed to be implemented immediately following the development of Phase I. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-1 01003 Ph— (•irm»n Vmfce lliN111.4v 01 :1'0: 10•: S .111 vMay Canyon�Saddli inyon Saddle Pacoil - Cougar Cant Contract Pointy IKagel May Canyon Figure 1 ® Regional Map No Scale Page 2 Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Plant Ctm onVigaresVig 1 Regional Map 11/15/00 1.0 Project Description Phase I Project Components Phase I involves the development of the northern pad (approximately three acres) and would consist of the following: walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage, as shown in Figure 2. More detailed descriptions of these components are presented below. Walkways and Parking • Walkways would be provided to the tots play area, restroom building, and from the parking lot to the park. • Parking lot would be asphalt paved and accommodate 15 vehicles, including handicap spaces. The parking lot would be sloped to prevent water puddles from forming after rains and irrigation. Security lighting (parking lot lighting) would be provided. Utilities • Utility infrastructures, including sewer, water, and electricity would be provided. Tots Play Area • The tots play area would be approximately 3,500 square feet and include playground equipment suitable for tots four years or younger in age and a sand play area. • The prime consideration in the development of the play area is the safety and security of the children; designs would comply with American Disability Act's (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas for the Year 2000. • An ADA access path from the parking to the play area would be provided. • Concrete benches would be provided for adults to supervise the children in the play area. • Security lighting would be provided. ' Other Site Amenities 1 • Three concrete picnic tables on concrete pads would be provided near the tots play area. One table and concrete pad would be ADA accessible. • Two, one=piece concrete park benches would also be provided in the tots play area. ' Six trash receptacles would be provided in the tots play area, picnic areas, and restroom building. • One bicycle rack would be provided. • A mow strip and a five-foot high chain linked fence around the Phase I area to define the park boundaries and development area would be provided. • A sign would be posted identifying the main entrance to the park. ' Landscape Planting and Irrigation • Landscape and irrigation improvements to the park would include, but not be limited to, turf, shrub, ' trees, and automatic irrigation system. • All turfed areas would be drill -seeded. • The irrigation system would include, but not be limited to, an automatic controller, automatic remote control valves, irrigation heads, and quick couplers. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-3 01(m Plum canann VMIV lrmf0.10r Ol'al0: 10.:3.1a1 _ 1.0 Project Description Rest roo m/iMaintenance Building ' • Approximately 350 square feet would be provided for the restroom building. • Security lighting outside of the restroom building would be provided. All lighting fixtures would be required to minimize off -site illumination. • A drinking fountain and public telephone would be provided on the exterior of the restroom building. • A storage area would be provided for maintenance equipment as part of the restroom building, as ' shown in Figure 2. Please II Proiect Components Phase II would incorporate the development of the southern pad (approximately four acres) consisting of the following: site work, utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), multipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, and a 15-space parking lot, as shown in Figure 2. More detailed descriptions of these components are presented below. Walkways and Parking • Walkways would be provided from the parking lot to the restroom building, the group and family ' picnic areas, and the school age children's play area. • Bench seating at selected locations and a walking path along the perimeter of the park would be provided. • Security lighting would be provided along the walkway. • Parking lot would be asphalt paved and accommodate 15 vehicles, including handicap spaces. The parking lot would be sloped to prevent water puddles from forming after rains and irrigation. ' Security lighting (parking lot lighting) would be provided. Children's Play Area ' • The children's play area would be approximately 6,500 square feet and would be located on the Phase I site, as shown in Figure 2. • Playground equipment suitable for children five through twelve would be provided adjacent to the tots play area. This area would have an identifiable separation. • The prime consideration in the development of the play area is the safety and security of the children; 1 designs would comply with ADA's Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas for the Year 2000; these guidelines would also be provided for the pathway from the parking area to the children's play area. • Security lighting and seating for adult supervision would be provided in the play area. • Curbs would be elevated around play area to control surfacing material from flowing over the curb. Other Site Amenities • Family picnic units would be installed with each unit containing one eight -foot concrete picnic table placed on a concrete slab. • A group picnic area would be provided to accommodate 40 to 50 people; this would be located on the Phase I site, as shown in Figure 2. Each unit would provide eight -foot concrete picnic tables placed on concrete slabs under a picnic shelter. • All picnic areas would comply with ADA guidelines. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/�iNlitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-5 1'' r Alain QrnYpn NrgdM fnnA Jx 01IM/01ro 't I V 1.0 Project Description • One-piece concrete benches anchored to the concrete surface would be provided in the vicinity of the children's play area. • Trash receptacles would be provided in the newly developed areas. • Two regulation horseshoe pits with redwood backboards would be provided; these would be located on the Phase I site, as shown in Figure 2. • A mow strip and five-foot high chain link fences necessary to complete the fencing around the perimeter of the park would be provided. Athletic Field • The multipurpose athletic field would be located in an area with consideration of the adjacent residents. • Two five -row bleachers, consisting of concrete bleacher pads, would be installed and permanently anchored to the concrete pads. • Los Angeles County standard cage type backstop and brick dust would be provided; items that may create a hazard to the use of the field (i.e. valve boxes) would not be located and permitted in play areas. • Irrigation heads suitable for this use would be implemented. • The exterior wall of the restroom building would have on/off lighting controls. Outdoor Basketball Court • A concrete basketball court would be provided with two backboards. All lines and dimensions would reflect the latest National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) court layout. An unobstructed ten -foot area outside of the court would be provided. Tennis Court • A fenced regulated tennis court with two seating benches would be provided. This would be located on the Phase I site, as shown in Figure 2. Jogging Path with Exercise Equipment • A decomposed granite jogging path with exercise stations would be provided. The exercise stations would be composed of concrete and galvanized steel fixtures. Landscape Planting and Irrigation • Landscape and irrigation improvements to the park would include, but not be limited to, turf, shrub, trees, and automatic irrigation system. • All turfed areas would be drill seeded. • The irrigation system would include, but not be limited to automatic controller, automatic remote control valves irrigation heads, and quick couplers. Flagpole • A 30-foot flagpole would be placed near the park entrance. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-6 01008P/u CdM1VM V4V,1r/fiml)"/vr 01 `t, • ° x _•,t 1,11 1.0 Project Description SCHEDULE According to the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the proposed project components in Phase I are anticipated to be constructed within a six-month period and be completed by mid-2002. The proposed project components in Phase H are currently unfunded but will be scheduled when funds are identified. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-7 nNMldPlanrC+n�nn,V /K/firm/I J� n? _`il/: J0.•:3Id1 2.0 Initial Study Checklist 2.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST The following Environmental Checklist and discussion of potential environmental effects were completed in accordance with Section 15063(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (October 1998) to determine if the project may have any significant effect on the environment. A brief explanation is provided for all determinations. A "No Impact" or "Less than Significant Impact" determination is made when the project will not have any impact or will not have a significant effect on the environment for that issue area based on a project -specific analysis. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: Plum Canyon County Park Project County of Los Angeles 433 South Vermont Avenue, 0 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90020 Larry Hensley County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation (213) 738-2965 28222 North Via Joyce Drive County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation 433 South Vermont Avenue, 4 h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90020 The general plan land use designation for the site is Urban 1, which allows for low -density residential development (1.1 to 3.3 units per acre). The site was originally zoned as Hillside Management but later re-classified as Residential Planned Development (RPD). The lot is located on Track No. 37801, which is a unit of parent Track No. 3 115 8. The proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately 7 of the 13 acres of undeveloped land into a passive and active year-round public park. The project site is comprised of two relatively flat pads, one in the northern end and the other in the southern end of the project site; correspondingly, the proposed project would be divided into two phases. Funding for Phase II is not available at this time; however, for the purpose of this environmental document, Phase II is assumed to be implemented immediately following the development of Phase I. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-1 orooa Pry c„�� n�rarfM,rr.a, ,. ,, �: rn.•:s,rs� 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Phase I Proiect Components ' Phase I involves the development of the northern pad (approximately three acres) and would consist of the following: walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle ' racks, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restroomslmaintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage, as shown in Figure 2. More detailed descriptions of these components are presented in Section 1.0. ' Phase II Proiect Components Phase H would incorporate the development of the southern pad (approximately four acres) consisting of ' the following: site work, utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), multipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, a 15-spacp ' parking lot, and a flagpole, as shown in Figure 2. More detailed descriptions of these components are presented in Section 1.0. ' 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is situated in a residential area. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of single-family ' residential development, as shown in Figures 3 to 6. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: ' Prior to project construction, permits may need to be obtained from the two state regulatory agencies identified below. The required permits are for the proposed construction in an area identified as "CDFG- ' jurisdictional drainages" (see Section 3.IV, Biological Resources, for discussion) and for surface waters (see Section 3.V111, Hydrology and Water Quality). • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Section 401 Permit and National Pollufion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-2 01003 Plum 07n1vn NCV1CC (rirtrd),10e 01 !0 :f AU View of the Phase I site looking southwest. StN L --F MIiL HIM f View of the Phase I and Phase II sites looking north. Figure 3 Views of the Project Site Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Plum C'anro Tq#,,eAFig 3 We— 11115100 1'` s • _LUfNr-E _ '��",'.r,:a� �., 1 URF „E PH N � MCI R Ej � 1�y:. � r� 'i §It r n •�� i1.' wl. C61Y .{ J�• f' irr View of the Phase I site looking southwest. r may. r��11• Y' K Y'ti�;/ CIF..,• {.V Manhole on the southern portion of the Phase II site. w ` Ra `'' • y1 _ ao `'k w Figure 4 Existing On -Site Features Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Plnm CamvmlFigw-\Rg 4 Edrrmg /I/ISPoO L CE 1V`IA,,cJOY'� iL " 'Al fir' • p� - . View looking west on Jerry Place. View looking west on Werren Place. Figure 5 Lxisting Single -Family Residences West of the Project Site Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Pirrrn C7mvnnAP'igur"\Fi,q 5 Weir Sirr 11/15R70 r a _ 4. — — — — — — — — — — — mt P'WA'�SE � SITE (3 ACRESj,� , e , � .•-,-- " ir ,ARC a s .w Wo v r View looking north. View looking south. Figure 6 Single -Family Residences North and South of the Project Site Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Plum funrr,n\Figu,r \Fig 6 S—th Sir, 11115100 2.0 Initial Study Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as Indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ CulturaI Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ' Signature Printed Name i Date For Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-7 Wood Plu.callmn.vwv(rrud).Joe 01/2PO:1O.'sAlf 2.0 Initial Study Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Significant Potentially Nith Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant No Jmpact IncoMeratlon impact Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project; a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Stu dyfblitigated'Negative Declaration Page 2-8 0100.1Plum ra.mv,Nryplre(firtd).Ju 01,.'A0. 10,:3 41t J 2.0 Initial Study Checklist ■ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ' III. AIR QUALITY — (cont.): c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ' ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ■ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ' IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified ' as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish ' and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water ' Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ' e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Signfcant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No mat incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-9 01003 P&M Cmn'" ,V kr Xmd),'w OU?L 0: 10; JS.6{1 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Less Than Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Ininact lncornoration Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving: ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or thai 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, creating substantial risks to life or°property? ❑ ❑ ❑ El Pluin Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-10 01003 Plum G nmr.Yer/rc lfmd) Joc OXWO.,10:13.L11 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — (cont.): e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No /mract Incorporation Impact -Impact ❑ ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-11 0100$ Phan cane" Niv.1aoV;wdl.J" 01/7)I0; 10.$5.0t 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or alowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses orplanneil uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface tvnoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation of sciche, tsunami, or mudflow? IY. LAND USE AIND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Sign f cant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant N0 —Impact Inc0020011011 linvact lm act ❑ ❑ to ❑ El ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-12 01003 Plum cunron Nerlee lfiwdhlot OMMO. 10:., 1,11 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — (cont.): b) 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact _Incorporation IM12act Impact ❑ ❑ El ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ►1' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/ivlitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-13 NMI Plum GSrm'"'M by ItiH.0,1+x OI;? H1110.114.11 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant bfifigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Im2act Incorporation 121,241cl Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -- a) 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-14 01001Plum CamtvvNegder(realldoe011.X0.'M 5LN 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC —Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to - capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Ievel of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alterative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: , a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waaioater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing• facilities, the constriction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmnact /ncorRoration lmpacf /mnact ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ® ❑ FT ❑ ® ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 01003Plunr c'm "d# Jar O1n)"O. ❑ ® ❑ vA "O�I 'rl Page 2-15 2.0 Initial Study Checklist Less Than Signfcant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Im act IncOrnoration Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — (cont.): e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a), Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will . cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2-16 010W Plum Clanton Vydtr ITmt/Woe 01/.J.YI: 10.1 1 %l 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ' AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. AESTHETICS ' Would the proposal: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site is located in an area characterized by single-family residences and scrub ' covered hillsides (see Figures 3 to 6). The project site occupies an undeveloped lot that is only visible from a few nearby streets and overlooking residences. There are no designated scenic vistas or highways in the immediate vicinity of the project site; therefore, impacts to a scenic vista would ' not occur. No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, ' and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? . No Impact. There are over 1,200 miles of State designated scenic highway in California. The ' nearest State designated scenic highway, Angeles Crest Highway (Highway 2), is located approximately 20 miles southeast of the project site in the San Gabriel Mountains. The project site is not visible from this or any other designated scenic highway, therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. As shown in Figure 3, the project site is currently undeveloped. The project site is characterized by two terraces which are separated by a small slope crossing the northern third of the site. The northern or "upper " terrace would be developed under Phase I, whereas the southern or "lower" terrace would remain undeveloped until Phase H. Both terraces would be visible from at least five residences to the north and three residences to the east which overlook the site. The park would also be visible at ground level from numerous residences along ' Via Joyce Drive, Werren Place, Arthur Court, Adriene Way, and Jerry Place, as shown in Figures 3 and 5. ' A few acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat would be converted to parkland as a result of the proposed project. The currently undeveloped open space would be replaced with recreational amenities, including a tennis court, basketball court, a multi -purpose field (baseball diamond and soccer field), children's play area/tot lot, picnic area, and other facilities. This would alter the visual character of the project site from its natural condition to a developed, albeit open space, condition. However, the public park would not }degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Public parks are aesthetically consistent with single-family residential communities, such as the neighborhood around the project site. The surrounding hillsides would remain in their current open space condition, providing a natural buffer between the park and the residences to the north and east. Visual impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-1 010al P&M Gmwe Ner/re (fireil).Jvr ONN10. 10.': t 1,11 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime . views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Plum Canyon Park would have security lighting along the pathways, at the restroom, and in the parking lot. No other nighttime lighting is proposed for the project; therefore, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance _(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses. There are no agricultural resources or operations on the project site or on adjacent properties, which are open space or support residential uses. No lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. No mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Los Angeles County sub -area of the South Coast Air Basin. Los Angeles County is designated as a non -attainment area for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOO, and particulates (PM�o). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate stationary sources, maintains an extensive air quality monitoring network to measure criteria pollutant concentrations throughout the South Coast Air Basin. The closest air monitoring station is located in the City of Santa Clarita, approximately five miles southwest of the project site. State and Federal agencies have set ambient air quality standards for various pollutants. Both ' California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established to protect the public health and welfare. The federal and State ambient air quality standards are presented in Table 1. The air quality impacts were evaluated using ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Nlitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-2 01003 Plum Cunwn MMI'v (rmh dor 01 V 6. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Averaging Federal State Pollutant Time Standard Standard Ozone (03) 1-hour 0.12 ppm 0.9 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 35 ppm 20.0 ppm 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Nitrogen Oxides (NOS) 1-hour 0.053 ppm 0.25 ppm Particulates (PM,o) 24-hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 ppm — parts per million; µg/m3 — micrograms per cubic meter SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data Summary, 1997. the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD and presented in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook.' Construction Emissions The SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for the criteria pollutants are shown on Table 2. Minor air contaminant emissions during the worst -case period, i.e., during construction activities, would result from the use of construction equipment and trips generated by construction workers and haul/material delivery trucks. Construction equipment used for conducting the proposed improvements would primarily consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane. It is anticipated that up to six months would be required to complete the proposed improvements under Phase I and another six months to complete the proposed improvements under Phase H. Project related construction emissions would have a temporary less than significant effect on air quality in the vicinity of the project (see Table 3). TABLE 2 SCAQMD AIR QUALITY IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ Particulates (PM,o) Project Construction 550 lbs/day 751bs/day 100 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Project Operation 550 lbs/day 551bs/day 551bs/day 150 lbs/day Note: No significance threshold is established for ozone as it is not emitted directly but is a secondary pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). ivaiuuy - puuuub per uay. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-3 0100JPlum010l%VmNerlr(rokd)JX 011.3,0: IOr:3 111 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 3 PROJECT -RELATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions lbs/da Construction Activity (Approximate Duration) CO ROC NOY PML4 Site Clearance/Preparation/Grading (one month) Construction equipmentb 0.00 4.68 67.20 4.79 Construction workers' trips` 20.43 1.74 4.38 1.37 Dump trucks 2.25 0.09 0.46 0.09 Grading (Phase I/Phase II)` -- -- -- 2.64/3.52 Total Site Clerance/Prep/Grading Emissions 22.68 6.51 72.04 8.8919.77 Construction of Park Components (two months) Construction equipment! 0.00 6.21 81.00 6.11 Construction workers' trips` 20.43 1.74 4.38 1.37 Material delivery trucks' 11.25 0.43 2.31 0.45 Total Constnrction of Park Components Emissions 31.68 8.38 87.69 7.93 Landscaping and Other Exterior Finishes (three months) Construction equipment" 0.00 1.20 13.60 1.12 Construction workers' trips` 20.43 1:74 4.38 1.37 Material delivery trucks' 11.25 0.43 2.31 0.45 Total Landscaping/Other Ext. Finishes Emissions 31.68 3.37 20.29 2.94 Daily Thresholds for Construction Emissions (lbs/day) 550 75 100 150 Do emissions exceed significance thresholds? No No No No a. Assumes the same construction schedule (period) for Phase I in 2001 and for Phase II in 2002. b. Assumes the use of the following pieces of construction equipment (8 hours/day): 1 backhoe, I dozer, I loader, 1 water pump. c, Assumes 15 construction workers, two trips per worker and 40 miles per trip (50'/o autos and 50% light -duty truck). d. Assumes one dump truck, two trips per day and 40 miles per trip (100% heavy-duty trucks). C. Assumes three acres of disturbance for Phase I and four acres for Phase 11; 26.4 pounds of PM10 per acre spread over 30 days. f. Assumes the use of the following pieces of construction equipment (6 hours/day): I backhoe, I dozer, 1 loader, I water pump, I concrete pump, 1 paver,.l truck crane. S. Assumes 5 material delivery trucks, two trips per truck and 40 miles per trip (100% heavy-duty trucks). h. Assumes the use of 1 truck crane 8 hours per day. Source: California Air Resources Board. URBEMIS7G (Version 3.1), August 1998; South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993; County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation/Purkiss•Rose•RSI, November 2000. Construction equipment would emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulates; ozone is not emitted directly but is a secondary pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NO,,). These emissions would increase local concentrations temporarily but would not be expected to increase the frequency of violations of air quality standards. Construction workers' traffic and diesel powered equipment would emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulates. These emissions would increase local concentrations temporarily but would not be expected to increase the frequency of violations of air quality standards. The daily emissions (assume the worst -case scenario of a full -day operation of construction equipment), as shown in Table 3, are estimated to remain below the threshold limits Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-4 0/0 $Plus,OvnwnXes4c(rinn!).Jor O)/.110 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures during the entire construction period. In addition, less than five pounds of PMIo would be emitted during the disturbance of approximately three acres of disturbed earth during Phase I and four acres of disturbed earth during Phase H. As these quantities would not exceed any of the threshold limits presented in Table 2, significant air quality impacts resulting from construction activities are not anticipated to occur. Mitigation measures would not be required. Operation Emissions The proposed project would generate new mobile source emissions associated with the vehicular trips generated by the park facility. No significant air emissions from stationary sources are anticipated (limited to the use of electricity on -site, which is anticipated to be minor). As discussed in Section XV, Transportation/Circulation, the proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 90 trips on any given day. Most of the visitors would be from the neighboring areas and would either walk or bike to the site. The proposed project would not result in significant traffic increases within the project vicinity. There would be no significant impacts to regional air quality anticipated from operation of the proposed project. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is bordered by sensitive receptors, primarily single- family residences, on the west, north, and south. However, as discussed above, the construction impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and because of their short duration, these impacts are not anticipated to add to long-term air pollution problems. Due to 1 the low level of trips generated by the project, criteria pollutant concentrations are anticipated to be well below the thresholds and, therefore, would not result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. ' e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. No activities would occur and no materials or chemicals would be stored on -site that would have the potential to cause odor impacts during the construction and use of the proposed park facility. Therefore, adverse odor impacts would not occur. No mitigation measures are required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of ' the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Plum -Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-5 01003 Ph— ca"10M ScOm Omal) da 01.0: J/0. 10-J's ,1.11 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ' Less Than Significant Impact. Two biological reconnaissance surveys were conducted b an l; P g Y Y . EDAW, Inc. (EDAW) biologist for the Plum Canyon County Park site on November 15, 2000, and April 4, 2001; the latter was conducted to prepare response to comments. The reconnaissance surveys focused on determining the presence or potential for significant biological resources on or adjacent to the site. Vegetation communities and biological resources are documented in Figure 7. Vegetation on site consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed (Lotus scoparius), with scattered individuals of California sagebrush (,4rtemisia californica), buckwheat ' (Eriogommt fasciculatum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Native and nonnative plant species interspersed between the native shrub species in this habitat include horehound (Marnibium vulgare), pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens), black mustard (Brassica nigra), red -stem filaree (Erodi u i cicutarium), Shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa pastoris), clover (Trifolium sp.), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), goldfields (Lasthenia sp.), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.), gazania (Ganzia spy, pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), cudweed (Gnaphalium sp.), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana 1 glauca).. A narrow band of unvegetated land occurs along the western and southern boundaries of the project site, as mapped in Figure 7. ' Due to the disturbed nature of the vegetation on site and the connectivity with housing developments to the north and west, the fauna observed within and adjacent to the project area were typically urban and disturbance -adapted species. Wildlife observed on site included western fence lizard ' (Sceloporus occidentalis), common raven (Corms corax), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonit), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), and small rodent burrows. ' Within the disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat, there are two narrow drainages that have been mapped as "CDFG jurisdictional areas" due to the presence of a well-defined bed and bank associated with the drainages (i.e., a distinctly incised channel) and the presence of an "ordinary high water mark," which is defined, in part, as a "destruction of terrestrial vegetation" (e.g., the lack of vegetation within portions of the drainage that was observed during site reconnaissance). Analysis of these drainages by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determined that they did not fall within ' the Corps' regulatory jurisdiction; therefore, no federally protected wetlands would be affected by the proposed project. However, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) conducted a separate field analysis and determined that it would take regulatory jurisdiction over the channels. ' These drainages were typically bare; some areas at the bottom of the channel support non-native grasses. These two drainages merge to form a wider and more deeply cut "CDFG jurisdictional" area. These drainages begin in the vicinity of the proposed tot lot and group picnic areas and extend to the south. Although the Corps has not taken regulatory jurisdiction on the proposed project, impacts to these drainages would require permits from CDFG and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a 401 permit, respectively). Since these drainages total less than one tenth of an acre, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant but would require mitigation at a 1.5 to 1 ratio (1.5 acres of mitigation for each acre of impact) in order to comply with the "no net loss" policy of CDFG. The total area of impact ' associated with the CDFG jurisdictional drainages on site is 0.046 acre; therefore, based on the 1.5:1 mitigation ratio, 0.069 acre of mitigation would be required. The disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat continues off -site along the relatively flat topography to the east. Within this adjacent off -site area is a sandy wash, which would qualify as another CDFG- jurisdictional drainage, as shown in Figure 7. This wash is also associated with small patches of riparian vegetation in the form of mule fat scrub (Baccharis saUcifolia). Sandy wash habitat within Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3.6 0100 Plw ca.) on Ntrler (rokilbloc 0/4'"., M.'s AM 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures the region is suitable for the federal and state -listed endangered slender -horned spineflower ' (Dodecahema leptoceras). As currently designed, the proposed project would not impact the wash, and, therefore, no impacts would occur to any population of slender -horned spineflower or the riparian habitat within the drainage. One salt cedar (Tamarix sp.) occurs off -site from the southeast end of the project area (Figure 7). Intact coastal sage scrub occurs on the slopes to the east of the project site. California sagebrush is the dominant species in this area, with smaller pockets of white sage (Salvia apiana), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and buckwheat. The California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a federally listed threatened species, was not observed during either site reconnaissance visit. However, based on input by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher were recommended for the site and within all suitable vegetation within 300 feet of the proposed development. In response to USFWS recommendations, the County conducted focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed or detected during any of the focused surveys. The absence of the gnatcatcher may be attributed to the isolated nature of the project site and the high level of urban development in the area. The disturbed nature of the project site suggests that migratory bird species would not likely nest within the disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat on site. However,,due to the low potential for bird species covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to nest on site, the Los Angeles County Department of Park and Recreation would restrict all vegetation removal of suitable nesting habitat to the non -breeding season (generally September 1 through February 28). Nesting habitat for the majority of migratory bird species typically consists of native scrub species within the vicinity of the project site, such as California sagebrush, buckwheat, and white sage. Vegetation of at least one meter in height offers the optimal nesting habitat for most bird species. However, there are some ground -nesting species that can use shorter vegetation, such as small shrubs or tall grasses; as protective cover for their nests. As previously stated, the disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat on site (i.e., sub -meter height) does not provide optimal nesting habitat for migratory bird species, particularly when highly suitable habitat occurs off -site to the east. The presence of this off -site optimal nesting habitat would likely result in the majority of the nesting activity to occur in these off - site areas rather than within the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive plant and animal species on site; as previously mentioned, no federally protected wetlands would be affected by the proposed project. However, the following mitigation/avoidance measures would minimize impacts to the CDFG jurisdictional drainages that would be eliminated from the project site and impacts to previously unidentified biological resources if observed during project construction. Mitigation Measures M-IV.1 The County shall mitigate impacts to ,the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off -site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve. ' M-IV.2 If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February IS through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of grading no more than IS days prior to the first ground Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-8 0100d Plum camos Vmkr (rorxdl dot 0/1:3 n; 10.1$ .1A/ 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300 foot buffer from the limits of construction. If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain: that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird TreatyAct. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? . Less Than Significant Impact. The site is bordered by residential development to the north and west and by a major road (Plum Canyon Road) to the south. The site itself is relatively disturbed and does not provide optimal habitat for resident or migratory species in the region. Impacts to migratory birds would be minimized by restricting vegetation removal of suitable nesting habitat to the non - breeding season (generally September 1 through February 28). The location of the project site adjacent to pre-existing development would not substantially interfere with the movement of any wildlife species through the area. Additionally, California's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) does not currently encompass this portion of Los Angeles County, and the County has not designated any portion of the site as part of a County -designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, or state preservation/conservation guidelines. No mitigation measures are necessary. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b). Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. EDAW archaeologists conducted an archaeological records search for the project site at the South Central Coastal Information Center. Six archaeological sites, one prehistoric and five historic, were identified within a one -mile radius of the project site. However, no archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the project site boundaries. Additionally, an archaeological survey was conducted for the project site. An intensive pedestrian survey was conducted on November 20, 2000, by EDAW staff archaeologists. An interval of no more than 15 meters was employed. Visibility was good to excellent. No cultural resources, including religious or sacred uses, were observed during the survey. Therefore, there is no potential ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 01008P1nm6+es»nNer1K/>-O.doe 01JN/0: 1015.1.11 Page 3-9 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for impacts to cultural resources. No further archaeological work is recommended, and no mitigation ' measures are required. However, the following mitigation measure would minimize impacts to previously unidentified cultural resources if uncovered during project construction. ' Mitigation Measure M-VA If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact ' deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special ' Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of any ' major fault zones, including the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest fault is the San Gabriel fault, which is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. Since earthquake -related hazards cannot be avoided in the Southern California region, the project site could ' be subjected to ground motion which could affect structures and/or park facilities. -The proposed park structures, such as the restroom/maintenance building, would be conducted in compliance with earthquake -resistant standards required by existing building codes (e.g., Title 24 of the State Building Code). Habitable structures are not included in the proposed project, and all proposed structures would be constructed in compliance with uniform building codes. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to increase the risk of exposure of people to impacts involving fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. ' The California Department of Mines and Geology's Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones for the Mint Canyon Quadrangle (which encompasses the project site) was released on March 25, 1999 2 Based on the review of available USGS topographical maps, the project site is located within an area of liquefiable soils and earthquake -induced landslides. This could potentially affect areas on -site; however, prior to construction, existing building codes would be implemented to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are required. California Department of Mines and Geology, Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones for the Mint Canyon Quadrangle, March 25, 1999. i. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-10 0100.1pla.rannon.\'VIreT1m11),10C 0P.Wo. M.sA31 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter topography within the project area. Minimal excavation would occur for the installation of the restroom/maintenance building. ' Vegetation would be planted after construction; therefore, no significant erosion impacts are expected to occur. No mitigation measures are required. ' c) Be located on strata 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? ' Less Than Significant Impact. No habitable structures would be developed as part of the proposed project; however, a small structure, a restroom/maintenance building, would be built in compliance with uniform building codes to ensure stable soils before construction. Therefore, no impacts from unstable soils are expected to occur. No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The proposed project site consists of surficial soils, which are classified as non - expansive soils. Therefore, there would be no impact due to expansive soils. No mitigation measures are required. I e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks to handle its wastewater generation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to result from project implementation. No mitigation measures are required. VII. HAZARDS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset - and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a public park on a currently undeveloped open lot. There are small piles of debris across the site, which would be disposed of during the initial site clearing and grading phase of construction. The debris (primarily cement and masonry rubble) and other excess materials at the site would not pose a significant risk to the public as they would be hauled from the site and disposed of at a nearby landfill. As discussed below, no hazardous materials have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. Impacts regarding hazardous materials would not occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-11 010M Plum Cugpm ,Negdee y7Mr4 dor 01/.1110; 10; : <,1.1t 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. A review of the results of the hazardous materials/waste sites database search (performed to ASTM Standards) was conducted for the project site in November 2000. The results of the database search (provided in Appendix A) indicate that no hazardous material sites are known to occur within a one -mile radius of the project site. As such, no significant hazard to the public or the environment would be created as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is located approximately ten miles northeast of Agua Dulce Airport, the nearest airport. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area or visiting the park. No mitigation measures are required. ' g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with a current emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan for local, state or federal agencies. Access to all local roads would be maintained during construction. Any emergency procedures would be implemented within local, state, and federal guidelines during construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. h) Expose people -or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including wherd wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areds or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees. Standard safety procedures and best management practices would be employed during construction, minimizing the potential risk for accidents to occur, including fires. Also, on -site landscaping would be maintained and watered regularly so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. The barbecue facilities in the group picnic area would be located over 50 feet from the nearest undeveloped area to the east. Accordingly, the siting of the proposed park facilities would not pose a long-term fire hazard. No mitigation measures are required. 3 VISTA Information Solutions, Site lissessment Plus Report for Plum Canyon Park, November 13, 2000. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-12 OW Phan canvon'Ver/cr lfinalbkv OPM/O. 10; .'l J It 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has adopted a General Construction Activity Storrs: Water Permit for storm water discharges associated with any construction activity including clearing, grading, excavation reconstruction, and dredge and fill activities that -results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area. Construction of Plum Canyon County Park would disturb approximately seven acres of land area; therefore, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required for the project. Compliance with the permit requirements would ensure that storm water runoff -related impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the tennis court, restrobm/maintenance building, picnic shelter, walkways, basketball court, and parking lot would reduce the impervious surface area of the site by less than 0.25 acre. The remainder of the park would continue to allow subsurface infiltration through the grass lawns and landscaped areas. As such, the proposed project would not noticeably affect the local groundwater supply. No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1.0, only minimal grading would be required to prepare the project site for construction. Existing drainage patterns would be maintained, and runoff from the park would be directed to the local storm drain network. Runoff from the project site would drain to one of two storm drains along the eastern boundary of the site or to the curbside storm drains along Via Joyce Drive or Plum Canyon Road. Minor improvements on existing surface drainage structure may be required in the northeast corner of the Phase I area to avoid drainage problems at the proposed tennis court site; however, such issues would not be significant and would be resolved during the detailed design phase of the project. No erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off -site is anticipated to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur; no mitigation measures are required. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-13 0100J Plum Cuneon Ntgdtt Ifinell dot Ol'1,4'071013 (It 1 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ' storm water drainage systems? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ' Less Than Significant Impact. A storm water drainage system is currently in -place at the project site. There are two storm drains along the eastern portion of the site and several curb -side drains along Via Joyce Drive to the west and Plum Canyon Road to the south. Two manhole access points are also located in the Phase II area. Drainage from the park would be routed to the existing storm ' drain network. The existing storm drain system would adequately accommodate the proposed park improvements. The amount of surface water runoff would not substantially increase beyond existing levels, as most irrigation water and precipitation would infiltrate into the lawn's root system and underlying groundwater table. No mitigation measures are required. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. No housing is proposed for the project. In addition, the project site is not located within an area designated as 100-year or 500-year flood plain.' Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not subject people or structures to significant flooding impacts. No mitigation measures are required. j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is not located near a body of water; therefore, the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is very low, if non-existent. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not subject people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures are required. ' IX LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No -Impact. The construction of Plum Canyon Park would not divide the residential community or significantly impact low income or minority resources. The proposed project would develop approximately seven acres of an approximately 13-acre open lot. The lot is bordered by single- family residences to the north, a scrub -covered hillside and utility corridor to the east, Plum Canyon Road to the south, and residential streets to the west. No mitigation measures are required. ' ESRI/FEMA, Flood Ha:ard N1ap, byp.-1/mapverver2.esri.com/c...Aa:ard.adol?s=0&cd=x&p=l&c= -118.490541. 34.448930&d=, November 14, 2000. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/ivlitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-14 �lOOJPlvmCm,nn.ViceJtt/fnnlyJot O INO. 10r:3.fit 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures b) 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? No Impact. The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. Development in this area is governed by local and regional plans including the County of Los Angeles ' General Play: and the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The general plan land use designation for the site is Urban 1, which allows for low -density residential development (1.1 to 3.3 units per acre). The site is zoned as Residential Planned Development (RPD). This land use designation and zoning classification allows for public park uses, such as the proposed Plum Canyon Park. As such, the proposed would not conflict with general plan or zoning designations. No mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? No Impact. The California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program incorporates an broad -based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. There are no active NCCP areas in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest such NCCP area is located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula nearly 50 miles south of the project site. Also, there are no HCP planning areas in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation ' plans or natural communities conservation plans. No mitigation measures are required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would involve the use of . construction materials, which include non-renewable resources. However, the construction of the proposed project would follow industry standards and would not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value; therefore, there is no potential for ' significant impacts on mineral resources. No mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE Would the project: ' a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise ' levels? Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-15 01003 Plum Camnn ,VcViv (firutll.Jor 01 *10. 10.: <,1„11 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed construction of Plum Canyon County Park would require various types of construction equipment, including some of those listed in Table 4. The County of Los Angeles Noise Code Section 12.08.440 sets the maximum exterior noise level for temporary intermittent construction noise at 75 dBA at any single-family residences between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Monday through Saturday except Sundays and Holidays). TABLE# DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SOURCE NOISE LEVELS Equipment Type Typical Equipment at 50 ft. (in dBA) Quieted Equipment at 50 ft. (in dBA' Air Compressor 81 71 Backhoe 85 80 Concrete Pump 82 80 Concrete Vibrator 76 70 Concrete Breaker 82 75 Truck Crane 88 80 Dozer 87 83 Generator 78 71 Loader 84 80 Paver 88 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 75 Water Pump 76 71 Power Hand Saw 78 70 Shovel 82 80 Trucks 88 83 Note: If pile drivers are used, the noise levels at 50 feet for typical equipment and quieted equipment would be 90 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively. a. Quieted equipment can be designed with enclosures, mufflers, or other noise -reducing features. SOURCE: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and None Appliances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Short-term construction impacts would be mitigated to acceptable levels by measures specified in the Los Angeles Noise Code, Section 12.08.440 (C)(D) and the mitigation measures identified below. These measures would be enforced by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department in response to complaints only. The project site is located in an area primarily consisting of single-family residences, which are located immediately to the north, west, south, and northeast of the project site. These sensitive land uses would potentially be exposed to noise generated from on -site construction activities. The distance from the boundary of the proposed construction activities to the closest single-family residences located adjacent to the project site is less than 50 feet to the north and west. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-16 0100 Plum Ca,,wx deg ee (rinah doe 014.1/0: lO.:S,l,51 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction noise levels at and near the project site during project construction would fluctuate ' depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Table 4 shows noise levels associated with various types of construction -related machinery. According to this table, noise levels as high as 88 dBA would be experienced by adjacent sensitive receptors. In the event when all of the equipment is operating simultaneously throughout the construction phase of the proposed project, the noise levels at the closest residence would be even higher. Construction noise would be temporary and intermittent and would occur only during daytime hours, which is the least noise -sensitive time of the day. Construction noise would have a short-term significant impact. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels given the limited hours and short duration of the construction activities. Mitigation Measures M-XI.1 Project construction: shall comply with the County - of Los Angeles Noise Code. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8: 00 p.m. on Mondays - Fridays; prior written approval shall be obtained to conduct construction activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays. ' M-XI.2 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 1 M-XI.3 Temporary noise mufflers and noise attenuating devices, particularly along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to the single-family residences, shall be employed to reduce noise generated during construction. (See Table 4 for anticipated noise reduction) As discussed in Transportation/Circulation Section, no significant changes to traffic generation are anticipated to occur. Therefore, noise levels associated with traffic generation resulting from the ' operation of the proposed project is not expected to increase nor affect the ambient noise levels. No mitigation measures are required for park operation. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project expose people residing or workingIn the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a I public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area or people visiting the project site to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips. No mitigation measures are required. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-17 01003 rlo Gt rvO VCr1rr 1JIen11 Joe 014*3.10: 10, %4 , 01 1 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1 Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project would not induce substantial growth to the area since it is a response to the existing need for recreational facilities within the current residential area. No growth -inducing impacts are anticipated to result from the proposed project. No mitigation measures area necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and, therefore, would not involve removal of any land uses, particularly residential uses, from the project site. No existing housing or residents would ' be displaced from the project site. Therefore, no population and housing impacts are anticipated. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 1 Would the project: , I a) 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department maintains its Division III Headquarters at 24875 N. San Fernando Road in Newhall, approximately six miles from the project site. This division handles two battalions and 15 other stations; two of these other stations are located within approximately five miles of the project sites Because the proposed local park is not anticipated to generate a significant fire hazard, the demand for fire protection services in the ' area is not expected to increase. The implementation of the project would be in accordance with the latest County Fire Department codes and guidelines, including, but not limited to the following: "" • Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase shall be addressed at the building fire plan check. • Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all weather surface of not less than the prescribed width, unobstructed, clear - Los Angeles County Fire Department, Division Map, http.jire.co.1a.calDivision_Afap.htm, November 13, 2900,--, -� ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-18 0100 MUM Can1W# r?rc$na1).d" 01/.J/0110;:5Alf ti 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and MItigation Measures to -sky. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. • The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15 percent, except where the topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade, and then an absolute maximum of 20 percent shall be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade, including topography difficulties, shall be no more than 17 percent. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10 percent in 10 feet. Fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure for up to a five -hour duration may be required. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship with other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: - No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. - No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. • Turning radii shall not be less than 42 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department -approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. All on -site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky. The on -site driveway shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of any building. Landscape design and construction would also use low -fuel volume and drought tolerant species. Therefore implementation of the proposed project would not negatively impact the ability of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to provide adequate service. No mitigation measures are necessary. Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The County of Los Angeles Sheriffs Department maintains 21 main stations throughout the County. The closest facility to the project site is the Santa Clarita Valley Station located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway in Valencia, approximately 4.5 miles from the project site.6 Public safety and vandalism reduction is an important consideration in the development of the design of the facility. Construction areas would be secured throughout the course of construction as necessary to ensure the safety of the public. The proposed local park is not anticipated to generate a significant demand for police protection services in the area because of its size and purpose of use. No mitigation measures are necessary. 6 Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Santa Clarita Valley Station, httn://tivtiviulasd.or .stations/svc.htm, November 12, 2000. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-19 01003 Plum Gmron Xk let tIlm l) da OMJlOJ 1 @: S. LV 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not have any growth -inducing effects. Most of the visitors of the proposed local park would be from the adjacent residential and neighboring areas; therefore, ' no impacts on school enrollment are expected. No mitigation measures are necessary. Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would serve the residents in the project area and is not anticipated to generate any additional population and, therefore, would not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would have a beneficial effect on 1 parks and recreational opportunities by providing the community with a local park. No negative impacts to parks are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Other.public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project is not expected to significantly affect any other public facilities in the area or in the community or County as a whole. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. ' XIV. RECREATION Would the project: ' a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks. Conversely, it would provide additional recreational opportunities by providing the community with a local park with a tennis court, children's play area, a multi -purpose field, and picnic areas. No negative impacts to recreation are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. According to the County's A Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for 2010, the Santa Clarita Valley Regional Planning Area, which includes the project site, would have a deficiency of 233.7 acres of local parkland The proposed project would involve development of a local park to increase recreational opportunities in the community. This would slightly alleviate the deficiency in recreation facilities in the area. No mitigation measures are necessary. a,. 7 County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation, A Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for 2010, May 1992. J Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page3-20 01001 Flum Gnn»a (VIce (fln(d) Juc 011)10: !0 :! AM 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 1 11 XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not generate any vehicle trips. Accordingly, construction of the park would increase traffic on the surrounding residential streets and at local intersections. As described below, however, the increase in both short - and long-term traffic levels would be minor. Short-term construction impacts would be less than significant for this project. Construction workers would typically arrive at the project site in the morning and park their personal vehicles along Via Joyce Drive or on the project site. (Approximately 15 construction workers would arrive at and depart from the project site per day for the duration of Phase I and Phase II construction.) Construction equipment and supplies would be delivered to the project site at various stages of the construction process. No more than five delivery trips would be expected per day, largely because all heavy equipment would be staged on -site. Due to the limited number of vehicle and truck trips expected per day, construction activities would not alter normal traffic conditions around the project site. The proposed Plum Canyon County Park is a neighborhood park facility. As such, many of the park's visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Some vehicular trips would be generated by the project, particularly during sporting events at the park, such as organized baseball or softball activities. Accordingly, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (6" Edition) was used to determine trip generation rates for the proposed park facility. Conservative rates for "County Park" facilities were used to determine maximum daily and peak hour trip estimates for the park, as shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK - TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Element Parking Peak Hour Trip Daily Trip Generation Spaces Generation Weekday' Saturda Weekday' Saturdayd Phase I 3 acres 15 2 7 7 37 Phase II 4 acres 15 3 9 10 49 BUILDOUT 7 acres 30 5 16 17 86 a. Trip Generation Rate = 0.59 trips per acre of parkland; 35% entering, 65% exiting b. Trip Generation Rate = 2.24 trips per acre of parkland; 59% entering. 41 % exiting c. Trip Generation Rate = 2.28 trips per acre of parkland; 50% entering, 50% exiting d. Trip Generation Rate o 12.14 trips per acre of parkland; 50% entering, 50% exiting Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (6+ Edition), 1997. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-21 OlOOJ PIam C++nrow +Vt�kt mall Joe 01I.W. 10::3.11 t L_J 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Saturday is expected to be the busiest day at the park. As shown in the table below, ' approximately 16 vehicles would enter or exit the project site during the peak hour. On an average Saturday, approximately 86 vehicular trips would be expected over the course of the day. This incremental increase in traffic would not have a significant impact on local traffic intersections. Nearby intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during park operation as no significant increases in average delay times and volume -to - capacity ratios would be expected. The proposed project would conform to the requirements of the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP requires that traffic studies be prepared to document impacts to all CMP monitoring intersections where the proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips. Because the project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips and there are no CMP intersections in the vicinity of the site, impacts to CMP monitoring stations arc not anticipated. As described above, impacts to the local street system would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate air traffic nor affect such activities. No mitigation measures are required. d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? - No Impact. The proposed project and the parking lot would meet all applicable design and safety requirements; therefore, no hazards associated with a design feature would occur. No mitigation measures are required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. No changes in access to emergency facilities or nearby land uses are expected to occur as a result of implementation of the project. No mitigation measures are required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact. A total of 15 parking spaces would be provided under each phase of park construction (for a total of 30 parking spaces at project buildout). As shown in Table 5, peak hour trip generation would not exceed the available parking supply. In the event that additional parking is needed, street parking would be available along Via Joyce Drive. Impacts related to parking supply would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation . As discussed above, many park users would arrive on foot or by other non -vehicular Plum Canyon County Para: Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-22 01003 Plum Canon Sfoce trirxdl.4v 01 N"O. l0.: < 1,11 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures means of transportation. To accommodate bicycle riders, bicycle racks would be provided at the park. No mitigation measures are required. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --- - . . - $--,-- , - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of wastewater as the only use on -site that would generate wastewater would be the restroom building. Similarly, water usage would also be minimal. No new wastewater and water systems would be required. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment and water treatment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to substantially increase storm ' water runoff in the project area. Major portions of the project site would remain impervious; a limited number of project components would require paving or impervious surfaces, such as the tennis court, the basketball court, the parking lots, and walkways. The development of the proposed ' project is not anticipated to significantly change the amount of impervious surfaces on -site to increase surface water runoff. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to use a significant amount of water as the only uses on -site that would use water would be the restroom building and landscaped areas and the multi -purpose field, which would both require irrigation. Similarly, wastewater generation would also be minimal as the only use on -site that would generate wastewater would be the restroom building. No new wastewater and water systems would be required. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment and water treatment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . Page 3-23 01003 Ph,- Camrn „ 'cgdce (rod) doe 014310. Ot � y = rv- 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require new solid waste facilities. ' Construction debris would be recycled or transported to the nearest landfill sites and disposed of appropriately. The nearest landfill is the Chiquita Canyon Landfill located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive in Castaic, approximately 1S miles from the project site; other landfills sites within 30 miles of ' the project site are Bradley West Landfill (approximately 25 miles away), Sunshine Canyon Landfill (approximately 26 miles away), and Antelope Valley Landfill (approximately 30 miles away).$ The amount of debris generated during project construction and operation is not expected to significantly impact landfill capacities; solid waste generation by the new local park would be minimal. The ' proposed project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste Operation of the proposed project would be subject to the requirements set forth in the County's Solid Waste Management Program. Although no significant impacts to solid waste facilities are anticipated, the following measures would further ensure solid waste minimization during project construction and operation. Mitigation Measures M-XVI.1 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction ' techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and the development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and it)tplemented whenever possible. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's ' recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the ' incorporation of this requirement. M-XVI.2 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the ' incorporation of this requirement. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ' a) Does the project have the potential to degrade *the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below ' self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration results in a determination that the project, either individually or cumulatively, would not ' have a significant effect on the local environment. The project site has been previously disturbed and is devoid of fish or significant wildlife, and/or plant populations. The proposed project would not s Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Landfills/Other Facilities, http:IlttgvwAacsd.orelsivaste%thr 1/.s. htn:, November 14, 2060. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/htilitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-24 OIOMPhmQentron.Veg(lvonal).doo 01:;01I011 1It 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures have the potential to degrade the environment in this regard as it would simply develop a site that has ' been previously disturbed. No intrusion on cultural resources is anticipated to occur. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ' ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has determined that the project would not have any cumulatively considerable impacts. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ' Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the discussions of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1 W Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3-25 VMS Ph"n ranOR, MAV 0^111d0r nl.t01 10:J,W 4.0 List of Preparers 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS REPORT AUTHORS LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Larry Hensley,-andscapcliiiect Lillie Lowery, efk-Planner Utz � ��L ✓ Lucy Younger, Project Manager CONSULTANT EDAW, INC. Michael Schwerin, Project Director Madonna Marcelo, Project Manager Eric Wilson, Senior Environmental Analyst " Elizabeth Candela, Environmental Analyst Lyndon Quon, Senior Wildlife Biologist Erik LaCoste, Wildlife Biologist James Prine, Senior Restoration Ecologist Cheryl Bowden-Renna, Archaeologist Jennifer Dellert, Archaeologist ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4-1 0100SPlum C pti'"Xweet r dl/.Jot Ol/:J/0: IO::Sd3t 5.0 Persons/Agencies Contacted and References 5.0 PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED AND REFERENCES PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED Castanon, David J., Chief, North Coast Section, Regulatory Branch, Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, January 30, 2001 Courtney, Betty, California Department of Fish and Game, March 30, 2001 and October 22, 2001 Farris, Rick, Senior Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2001, October 24, 2001, and November 1, 2001 Fitzgerald, Ellen, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, November 15, 2000 Harris, Scott, Associate Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, March 21, 2001 Klecha, Anthony, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, February 2001 Lampara, Louise, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2001 Lang, Steven N., Purkiss-Rose-RSI, Landscape Architecture, Recreation and Park Planning, November 2000 REFERENCES Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 1971 Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board 1998 URBEMIS7G (Version 3.1). August. California Department of Mines and Geology 1999 Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones for the Mint Canyon Quadrangle. March 25. County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation 1999 Facility Program, Plum Canyon County Park. July. 1992 A Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for 2010. May. County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning 1990 Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan: A Component of the County of Los Angeles General Platt. December 6. ESRI/FEMA 2000 Flood Hazard Map, http://ma,2server2.esri.com/c...1hazard.adol?s=0&cd=x&p=1&c= -118.490541, 34.448930&d=. November 14. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5-1 0/0WPI..Oukro.Xgdee(tnaf)doe Oft.'),0. 10!.5AM 5.0 Persons/Agencies Contacted and References Institute of Transportation Engineers 1997 Trip Generation Manual (6" Edition). Los Angeles County Fire Department 2000 Division: Map, http.jz're.co.1a.calDivision-.,Map.htm. November 13. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 2000 Santa Clarita Valley Station, http:Iltitnvw.lasd.ore.stations/svc.htm. November 12. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 2000 Landfills/Other Facilities, http://www/lacsd.org/swaste/othr lfs.htm. November 14. South Coast Air QualityManagement District 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.. . VISTA Information Solutions 2000 Site Assessment Plus Report for Plum Canyon Park. November 13. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial. Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5-2 01003 plum cannm %'vAT Oflalt dw 01410. 10 " t It 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses SECTION 6.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSES A total of nine comment letters were received by the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation in response to the agency/public circulation of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Plum Canyon County Park Project. The written responses to the comments on the Draft IS/MND are presented in this section. Responses to the comments are provided in the text that follows each letter. Letter Commentor A State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse B County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Planning and Property Management Section Ruth I. Frazen, Engineering Technician C Southern California Association of Governments Intergovernmental Review Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP, Senior Planner D County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division David R. Leininger, Acting Chief, Prevention Bureau E State of California Department of Fish and Game Scott Harris, Associate Wildlife Biologist F City of Santa Clarita Tom Reilly, Park Development Administrator G State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Terry Roberts, Senior Planner H Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division Rod H. Kobomoto, Assistant Deputy Director I California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Region) TMDL Unit Elizabeth Erickson, Associate Geologist Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-1 010M Plum Carron'V4V/ r 11Ewd dal 01:: ". 10,:14,11 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses LETTER A STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research ' State Clearinghouse •`i�.>�' Gray Davis Steve Nissen COVER\OR DIRECTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: February 22, 2001 W. Larry Hensley Los Angeles County 433 South Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 RE: Plum Canyon County Park Development SCH#: 2001021050 ' This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: February13, 2001 0 Review End Date: March 14, 2001 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: Caltrans, District 7 Department of Conservation A-1 Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 ' Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Department of Health Services Department of Parks and Recreation Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4 Resources Agency State Lands Commission ' State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Program The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. I A-2 Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. I 1400Tt:xrltSTREET P.O. BOX3044 SA IUMENT0.CALIFOR\IA Wt2-3044 916-44s-o6t3 FAY 916-323-3018 'R'R•K.OrR.CA.GOV CLEARI\GII0USE.1ML ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-2 01003 Plw ca"yon .,Vml v ON11) dx of/.'".' 10'.,5 Al 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter A: Response to Comments from the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Comment Number A-1 A-2 Response According to the State Clearinghouse, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to 11 agencies and departments during the comment period. Only one agency, Department of Fish and Game, commented during this period (see Letter E). Please see response to Letter G. Plum Canyon County Part: Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-3 WomPlum Cun>»nNegdec07milb/oe 01:t0:10':5.Itl 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses I r LETTER B �[QAYAiIOn .000WA,„YABAe[Y[pr COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Rood, Whittier, CA 9060)-1400 Moiling Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 telephone: (5621699.7411, FAX: (562) 699.5422 www.lcesd.org JAMES F. STAHL ChW Engineer and General Manager February 28,2001 File No: 26-00.04-00 Mr. Larry R. Hensley, Department Facility Planner II ' . RECEIVED County of Los Angeles Dcpa,-,mcnt ofParks and Recreation �? Q 1 2Q0� 433 South Vermont Avenue f''"" Los Angeles, CA 90020 PLANNING DIVIS'^" Dear Mr. Hensley: Plum Canyon County Park Development The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project on February 12, 2001. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Districts and will require annexation into District No. 26 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed B-1 development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Margarita Cabrera at extension 2708. 2. The wastewater (low originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Bouquet Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer, located in Bouquet Canyon Road at Festividad Drive. This 24-inch diameter trunk B-2 sewer has a design capacity of 12.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 6.9 mgd when last measured in 1996. 3. The Districts operate two waferreclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP in order to provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarity Valley. These facilities are interconnected to -.^Z a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarity Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS) which has a permitted treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd. A two phase expansion of the Valencia WRP has been currently approved which will increase the treatment capacity of the SCVJSS by 15 mgd. The first phase, scheduled to be completed by early 2002, will consist of a 9.0 mgd expansion and is expected to meet the Regional Growth Management Plan forecasted demand through 2010. The second phase, scheduled to be completed by early 2010, will consist of an additional 6.0 mgd expansion and will increase the SCVJSS treatment capacity to 34.1 mgd which will be sufficient to meet the demand until 2015. The SCVJSS currently processes an average flow of 16.6 mgd. 4 The expected average wastewater flow from the project site is 1,357 gallons per day. 0 tieeyebo P.0.r B-3 Plunt Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 64 410AI Plum Canon uVCVI v (rinal).,loe 0/I:J 0. 70 -7 1 1'r 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr. tarry R. Hensley February 28, 2001 5. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength andlorquantity ofwastewater attributable to a particular parcel oroperation already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact ofthis project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727. 6. In order for the Districts to conform with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecastadoptedbytheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast arc incorporated into the Air Quality Management Plan, which is prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in order to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts'treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 699.7411, extension 2717. Very truly yours, James F. Stahl Ruth I. Frazcn Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section RIF:eg oo.�uvcaocrnNsysaaai ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/!♦litigated Negative Declaration Page 6-5 OJOW P(um Grnre'e �' +,,kr I�mrll.h� OJ1:Jl0: l0.:l.1,tl 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses ' Letter B: Response to Comments from the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ty Planning and Property Management Section Ruth I. Frazen, Engineering Technician Comment ' Number Response B-1 The project site will be annexed into District No. 26 to receive sewerage service. Ms. Margarita Cabrera, Engineering Technician for the Planning and Property Management Section of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, was contacted regarding annexation of the site into District No. 26. According to Ms. Cabrera, based on an estimated park area of 12.92 acres, the annexation processing fees total approximately $7,378; this application for sewer connection will be processed after an approved annexation application, which would include a copy of this CEQA document (after certification), is submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission B-2 The proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line for conveyance to the Districts' Bouquet Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer, which is located approximately eight miles southwest of the project site. B-3 The two water reclamation plans providing wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project since the proposed project is expected to generate an average wastewater flow of 1,357 gallons per day. In 2002, the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS) will have an expanded treatment capacity of 28.1 million gallons per day (mgd). Currently, SCVJSS processes an average flow of 16.6 mgd. The project addition of 0.0014 mgd would be a small fraction of the treatment capacity that it is expected to have a less than significant impact on the two water reclamation plans in the area. B-4 The County will be subject to pay any applicable utility connection fees to the 1 appropriate service providers. B-5 The proposed project has been identified and included in the County's A Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan for 2010, which was prepared in 1992 consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element of the 1980 County General Plan. Therefore, it may be assumed that the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments includes the proposed project. Accordingly, it may be assumed the proposed project would generate wastewater flow within the level that is legally permitted to conform with the requirements of the Federal CIean Air Act. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-6 O10W Plu" C"mon vmler (rmil) Joe 0WRO., M*M 1,11 � I 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses I LETTER C � I � I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main office 818 West Seventh Str M uth Floor los M�etts. Gtlfomp 9=7.3435 14203*000 F tns) ass.w:s a w w AA.•... +..� r•. r..�.. .I"...f L. &" Ghft%N CUw w aw+w.n rw &.*." 1n1.. wAyr.cww.Iwwwi•� to AN -is Q•+7 • AI.r A.w6 tAYM.1 M • ... o••a• A.. eve • w...�•.1•. w+. c.+ a+... •.a......� .....�. • t... 04k w AApM • c.r .}A...Y.,&Y ChN P O KaaA w AA,... • WMA •...A �.. OW.H trl WA• eM KrIwA,lnu� U."M Uwe OWWO&I WA 1..1 K.w.. wA.,... • IAr K.w. w 1.Z, n-•n . r,.4 r. — 1_ A.ei.AM.RY�1rAyrN• e.rtwrw. ..dr/eY.i.,W •6r7rwMl r•urr. w w�. • M �N�►rw r=.AWft •1.dt. hL MAyi W • th-A %6#4 ti aYAr• Mf.MM I••% b.�.ria1 F�wr.+.•.•MLnK. fwd.• Ave t•�w Mr M •�.i�A..w. Ys■iMb� tJ tAn.A w�.+h Iwrr• t+..1.4*#6 W..* • 9" owl%c.w+ ev • A.M. r.,* • u. A.Fn•. ,...r.�...w..... .�.., e••..r.. n+i • M AIwA.Iq 6..M O..w..1.•e�. %�A1+yY.111in' 0..1 IV.wr. hKw • IK nw MK f.•.17 W �. • N..ti NMM,H., f]...II�•7.MIyiLL W I.rrl.. br Ik r1.kw M,r..�. • GIn 1•..a M�IrW►•1M11.1�! M IM.wf R.M.tr w~ M 0.•h N.MYr A....rM••'�W ..►.nw. March 12, 2001 Mr. Larry Hensley Departmental Facilities Planner I Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation 433 S. Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90020 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse 120010116 Plum Canyon County Park Development Dear Mr. I Iensley: We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there C-1 be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the project will be published in the March 15, 2001 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention ofthe Clearinghtwse Coordinator. Ifyou have any questions, pie= contact me at (213) 236-1867. Sincerely, �l EFFit . SIV int AICP Senior Planner Wcrgovernmental Review ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-7 010M Plum C+nlw. Nt; M UMmp.Joe ov.-J 0: 10".'s-(At 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter C: Response to Comments from Southern California Association of Governments Intergovernmental Review Jeffrey M. Smith, AICP, Senior Planner Comment Number Response C-1 According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the proposed project would not be regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria and does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/INI i ti gated Negative'Declaration Page 6-8 01003Plum caninaNerlec"I � I 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses OC'OART�t�N` P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER A FIRE WARDEN March 8, 2001 LETTER D COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DZPAATMLNT 1320 NORM EASWN AfW" W3 M4E= C"Oft" 900E3.7 9r (323) 8904330 RECEIVED MAR 12 PLANNING D1VISit: 'Larry R. Hensley. Department Facility Planner II County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation ' 433 South Vermont Avenue. Los Angeles, CA 90020 ' Dear Mr. Hensley: SUBJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT —NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PLUM CANYON COUNTY ' PARK DEVELOPMENT, "CITY OF SANTA CLARITA" — (EIR #108=001) The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Plum Canyon County Park Development has been reviewed by the Planning. Land Development. and Forestry Divisions of the County of Los Angeles ' Fire Department. The following are their comments: LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT — GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: ' This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for constriction, access, water mains, fire hydrants. fire flows, brush clearance: and fact modification plans, must be met. Specific fire and life safety requirements for thtr construction phase will be addressed at the buildinng fire plan check. There may be ad4itional fire and life safety requi ea:e=.curing this time. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways. with an all weather surface of not less than the prescribed width, unobstructed, clear -to -sky. The roadway shall be ' extended to within 150 fat of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. . When a bridge is required, to be used as part of a fire access road. it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with nationally recognized standards and designed for a live load sufficient to carry a minimum of ' 75.000 pounds. sErmN0 THE uNINCORPORATED ARus of n os Ame FS CO *M Am THE =to OF: �ff A40UMW.L3 ORAOOIRCV CWAW HAWrA0r*K UL&VA% MA" /c"01" SOK4HU ARTEM CA(ANkW %"4NOOAR HM IWAS LAFIASME MRYWOOO RM OHo WlO!voces 90MfL10091E AV AA CAP." WAM HuKrMIOHMIK LAKrO* c HORWAuc ROUR4 HK" 901m m SAVWM rAAK C(JMMMI UMCK 6 04DUSM LMCAS UI FNJADMt HOWHO H=[fwn 71001.1an 6" O{ANIAW CAROCHA M/0Lr#V= LAV*JO" MLOl VCP"s EVATU 00110WAe W MAW WALGAAW00 COAVCII MWORA POP*" I".% RAILMAOIkT AAM OMAAI v4sy 1`0011m= OtUrOYRR COW" WWA"N CAADC-4 tACAMAOA4UWF X IYNW= /ICOR}V M GVMcLgMTA VIETiLAOVtLAOE VARTMR ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-9 01003 Plum Caywr Nerfee lfMdD.doe Ol✓:A'o. 10::5 I it � I 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses I I Larry R. Hensley, Department Facility Planner II March 8, 2001 Page 2 The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15% except where the topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade, and then an absolute maximum of 20% will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade, including topography difficulties, shall be no more than 17%. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10% in 10 feet. ' INSTI=IONAL: Development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five -hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. 2. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. Turning radii Shall not be less than 42 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. All on -site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky. The on -site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Driveway width for institutional developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: ' 1. Provide 28 feet in width, when a building has three or more stories, or is more than 35 feet in height, above access level. Also, for using fire truck ladders, the centerline of the access roadway shall be located parallel to, and within 30 feet of the exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. Provide 34 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. ' 3. Provide 42 feet in width, when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. 4. All "Fire Lanes" will be depicted on the final map, and will be designated with the appropriate signage. ' "Fire Lanes" are any ingress/egress, roadway/driveway with paving less than 34 feet in width, and will be clear -to -sky. ' LIMITED ACCESS DEVICES (GATES ETC.): I Any single gate used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width, clear -to -sky. D-1 I D-2 Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-10 O100 Plw cwl % x Nerice (JI-0,10C Of :l 0: 10 : f ,01 � I 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Larry R. Hensley, Department Facility Planner II March 8, 2001 Page 3 Z Any gate used for a single direction of travel, used in conjunction with another gate, used for travel in the opposite direction, (split gates) shall have a minimum width of 20 feet each, clear -to -sky. 3. Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right-of-way, and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used, the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. 4. All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. 5. Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department, prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths and details of the proposed gates. D-2 (Cont'd) TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES: All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps, traffic circles, roundabouts. etc.) shall be I D-3 submitted to the Fire Department for review, prior to implementation. Should any questions arise regarding design and construction, and/or water and access, please contact Inspector Mike McHargue at (323) 8904243. FORESTRY DIVISION - OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division include erosion control. watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4. archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree D-4 Ordinance. The proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts in these areas. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (M) 890.4330. Very truly yours, ' DAVID R. LEIMNGER. ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU DRL:lc ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/iliitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-11 0100$ Plwe Canl»n Vegdv (rinnll,,", '+! : '' "'" '4 911 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter D: Response to Comments from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division David R. Leininger, Acting Chief, Prevention Bureau Comment ' Number Response D-1 The following County Fire Department codes and guidelines have been added to the Fire ' Protection discussion on page 3-17 of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: ' • Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase shall be addressed at the building fire plan check, ' • Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all weather surface of not less than the prescribed width, unobstructed, clear -to -sky. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all I portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. ' • The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15 percent, except where the topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade, and then an absolute maximum of 20 percent shall be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average ' maximum allowed grade, including topography difficulties, shall be no more than 17 percent. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10 percent in 10 feet. I D-2 • Fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual pressure for up to a five -hour duration may be required. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship with other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: - No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. - No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. • Turning radii shall not be less than 42 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department -approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in length and at the end of all cut -de - sacs. All on -site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, clear -to -sky. The on -site driveway shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of any building. The proposed project would not include limited access devices, such as gates or control devices. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-12 nlA9YPlunG�ma�NtgJrt/finuU+Ix AI_'Pn•' oqi 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter D: Response to Comments from the County of Los Angeles — (Continued) Fire Department, Forestry Division David R. Leininger, Acting Chief, Prevention Bureau Comment Number Response D-3 The proposed project would not include any traffic calming measures, such as speed humps/bumps, traffic circles, roundabouts, etc. D4 According to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division, the proposed project would not have significant impacts on erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archaeblogical and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance,.which are statutory responsibilities of the Fire Department. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-13 moos Phon ciimu�,1'�8�ln• rf,�d� ,r: � ,r : a n: �o,•:s,+.t� it 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses LETTER E AT�.Ct�CAIIFI�fiAISA SAeCENC.'Y YOAV{S r DEi�1�T ME1VT OF ISH A U.AME -� South Corsi RT, , on 4940 Y4" doe Avonve San 0;490, CaBrcnua 92123 ' Z 58) 467.4201 FAX (M) 4a7-423$ March 12. 2001 W Larry Hensley ' Los Angeles County 0Apartment of Parks and Recreation 43 South Vermont Avenue. 4" Floor Los Angeles. CA 90020 ' Dear Nir, Hensley: Draft Negative Declaration for Plum Canyon County Park 1 SCH # 2001021050. Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Initiai Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the above -referenced project. relative to imoacts to biological resources. The proposed project consists of developing a 7 acre County Park on a 13 acre undeveloped site located east of North Via Joyce Drive and north of Plum Canyon Road. east of the City of Santa Clarita. ' ' The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the proiect (CEOA Section 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq) and Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et sea.. Imoacts to liglopleat Resources According to the IS, the 7 acre proposed park consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub (CSC) and is located immediately adiacent to areas delineated as higher quality CSC. a. The Department suggests that portions of the proposed project site supporting higher quality CSC could support habitat for the Federally Threatened Califomia gnatcatcher (CGC). The Department recommends that a focused survey for CGC be performed by authorized individuals following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey protocol to determine presence or absence. Proposed protect activities could result In adverse impacts to the CGC and/or occupied habitat E-1 Plum Canyon ('aunty Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-14 ' 0100plmn01;wn 1 , N hr or s.ro: roa.iu 1 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr. t arry Hens►ev March 12. 200f Paae Two which would be considered significant under CEQA. Results of the focused survev will assist the lead aaencv in determinina the level of CEQA review. I avoidance and mitigation measures for this oroposed oroiect. (Contd) ' 2. The Proposed oroiect may result in the removal/disturbance of vegetation and therefore has the potential to directiv Impact a number of nesting native bird species. a. Miaratory nonaame native bird soectes are protected by international treaty under the Federal Miaratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) of 1918(50 C.F.R. Section E-2 10.13). Sections 3503.3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other miaratory nongame binds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). b. Proposed oroiect activities (includina disturbances to native and non-native vegetation) should take place outside of the breeding bird season which ' aenerally runs from March 1- August 31 (as eariv as February 1 for raotors) to avoid take (-fncludina disturbances which would cause abandonment of active E-3 nests containina eaas and/or youna). Take means to hunt. oursue. catch. capture, or kill. or attempt to hunt. pursue. catch, capture of kill (Fish and Game Code Section 86). C. If project activities cannot feasiblely avoid the breeding bird season. the ' ° Oeoartment recommends that beginnina thirtv days orior to the disturbance of suitable nesting habitat the orolect or000nent should arrange for weekly bird ' surveys to defect anv protected native*birds in the habitat to be removed and anv other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors). The surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist with ,experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the oroiect vr000nent should delav all clearance/construction 1 disturbance activities in suitable nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat (within 500 feet for raptor nesting habitat) until August 31 or continue the E-4 surveys in order to locate any nests. If an active nest is located. Gearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and iuveniles have fledged and when there ' . is no evidence of a second aftemot at nestina. Limits of construction to avoid a nest should be established in the field with flagaing and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel should be instructed on the sensitivitv of the area. The oroiect proponent should record the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and Federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. . I Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/btitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-15 01003 PAax, C v doe 01CR0: 10.':3dbl 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr, i.ary Hens A March 12. 2001, Paae Three a. I ne =iomamp! reconns-sannee rsTg1`3nCeO !n :!is wa=' c0 at r P. !(;tPC! !1n r:nviii i.irn 2CLOO. Tito iC rtnac nni moka Aaar ac fn if s c!lnia%l fnr concifhrc wilriiifa cnorioc Wag rnnPfllrfai . _... _ _ a. it a wildlife survey was conducted within proposed oroiect impact areas. several soecies such as coast homed lizard. coastal westem whiotail and sensitive E-5 nestina bird species would not have been detected in the month of November. The Department recommends a bioloaical survey be conducted durina the aoproodate season to maximize detection of sensitive wildlife soecies. Results of fhe botanical survey will assist the lead aaenev In determining the level of CEQA review. avoidance and mitiaation measures for this or000sed oroiect. Imoacts to Botanical Resources The Bioloaical reconnaissance referenced in the iS was conducted on November 1*. 2000. The IS does not make clear as to if a botanical survey for sensitive otant soecies was conducted. a. If a botanical survey was conducted within proposed protect impact areas. many seasonal herbaceous soecies would not have been detected in the month of November. The Deoartment recommends a botanical survey in the aoorooriate season foilowino winter rains to maximize detection of sensiiive herbaceous species. Results of the botanical survey will assist the lead aaenev in determining the level of CEQA review. avoidance and mitigation measures for this or000sed Drolect. E-6 Imoact , to Orainaacs The IS states that there are two drainages within the impact area of the or000sed oroiect site. n r U�' E-7 a. A Streambed Hiteraiion Acreemeni beiween the Donan:rn nd :ne Leec Ananry !-, %e nen(�irari fnr ony QMorotrnn of rlr inanAc inrll�riinn filiinn nr rnnt)arcinn to c!!hclirraro ifroinc o. The Deoartment's issuance of a stream bed alteration agreement is considered a oroiect that is subiect to CEQA. To facilitate our issuance of the agreement. the Department as a responsible aaencv under CEQA may consider the local iurisdictlon's !lead aaencvl document for the oroiect. To minimize additional reauiremenis by the Deoartment under CEQA the document should fully identify the ootential imoacts to anv drainaae or rioarian resources and provide adequate avoidance. mitigation. monitorina and reoortina commitments for issuance of the aareement. if imDacts to the on site drainaae will occur. the Im Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-16 0100Pl1'mCIRWOM. M/ce(final)doe Ol/!)/O: 10!:SAll 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr. Larry Hertsiev March 12. 200'r Page Four vrovosed IS/ND does not provide the adequate information necessary for M-- Department to consider a streambed agreement at this time. Modification of the proposed nro'ject map be required to avoid or reduce impacts to drainages. E-8 the' Deoartment suoaests that the remainina wash within the portion of the site (Contd) not planned for park construction could support on -site mitiaation potential for unavoidable oro'led alterations to drainaaea. Please contact Ms. Bettv Courtnev at (661) 263-8306 to discuss further. Mitiaation for Cumulative impacts Regionally. much of the native CSC (a rare natural community considered very threatened by the Department) and associated wildlife habitat surroundina the proposed aroiect site has been lost to suburban uses and/or is in the planning or implementation stage of beina converted to suburban uses. Loss of dSC habitat should be. considered a sionificant adverse Impact under CEQA. The Department recommends that the remaining portion of the site not oroposed for Dark develooment be orotected under a deed restriction to oreserve its habitat values for wildlife and to mitioate for the cumulative loss of CSC habitat. In conclusion the Department recommends that the above concems be addressed orior to lead aaencv aporoval of the oroposed oroiect. . Thank you for this 0000rtunity to comment on this proposed protect. Questions reaardina this letter and further coordination on them issues should be directed to Mr. Scott Harris. Associate Wildlife Biologist at (818) 360-8140. S . Mr. G.F. Raysbrook Reaionai Manager cc: Ms. Morgan Wehtie Ms. Mary Mever Ms. Bettv Courtnev Oepartment of Fish and Game Mr. Rav Srane-f e.Ed U.S. Fif h and Wildlife Service. Vanturn E-9 ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-17 01003Prumc,n%-omSWv(rml).doe 011.1 O.1o::sAsr 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter E: Response to Comments from the State of California Department of Fish and Game Scott Harris, Associate Wildlife Biologist ' Comment Number Resnonse E-1 During preparation of this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, ' consultations with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) were conducted to address CDFG's comments and concerns regarding the proposed project. Specifically, adverse impacts to the higher quality coastal sage scrub, which could potentially support ' the federally listed threatened California gnatcatcher, were discussed with CDFG. According to Mr. Scott Harris, Associate Wildlife Biologist with CDFG, since the site is rather degraded, construction impacts, on the California gnatcatcher would not be ' significant if grading activities were to occur outside of the breeding season, which generally runs as early as February 1 through August 31 (pers. comm. March 2001). However, based on similar consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), focused California gnatcatcher surveys were recommended; the County has recently completed such surveys. No California gnatcatchers were observed on site or in the surrounding areas during the focused surveys. ' E-2 The County is proposing to initiate construction in November, during the non -breeding season. Both the CDFG (Mr. Scott Harris) and USFWS (Mr. Rick Farris [Senior ' Ecologist] and Ms. Louise Lampara [Fish and Wildlife Biologist]) have concurred that avoidance of the breeding season would suffice for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mitigation measures have been added to the IS/MND in the event that 1 construction occurs during the breeding season. E-3 Construction activities (including vegetation disturbance and removal) will be initiated during the non -breeding season (September 1 through February 28). All required ' vegetation disturbance will occur during the non -breeding season. E-4 If construction activities are required during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), all vegetation on site and within a 300-foot buffer surrounding the site will be monitored by a qualified biologist. If any nesting activity is detected within the site or 300-foot buffer, all construction will cease within 300 feet of the active nest until all breeding/nesting activity has been completed at that location. E-5 In response to CDFG concerns, an additional site survey was conducted on April 4, ' 2001. The results of this spring faunal survey have been incorporated into the IS/MND- No sensitive animal species were observed or detected on, or„adjacent to, the site. E-6 In response to CDFG concerns, an additional site survey was conducted on April 4, 2001. The results of this Spring floral survey have been incorporated into the IS/MND- No sensitive plant species were observed on, or adjacent to, the site. I Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Nlitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-18 01003 Pto Caman Nerlm (/inal).dw OMJ/0J 10.^:3111 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses 1 Letter E: Response to Comments from the State of California — (Continued) ' Department of Fish and Game Scott Harris, Associate Wildlife Biologist Comment ' Number Response E-7 Ms. Betty Courtney of CDFG was contacted regarding impacts to on -site drainages. Based on Ms. Courtney's visit to the project site on March 30, 2001, these drainages were determined to be under CDFG jurisdiction. Therefore, because these drainages would be altered as a result of the proposed project, a Streambed Alteration Agreement ' would be required to comply with Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code. E-8 The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation will submit to CDFG a ' notification package upon certification of this Final IS/MND. The notification package will include identification of project impacts to on -site drainages and will provide mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance of the Streambed ' Alteration Agreement. According to Ms. Courtney, the proposed project would have a minor impact on the on -site drainages under CDFG jurisdiction. However, because of CDFG's no net loss policy, impacts to the two on -site drainages would need to be ' mitigated. As indicated by CDFG, a 1.5:1 mitigation ratio would be required for the proposed project. Mitigation acreage would need to account for 0.069 acre of plantings. A mitigation measure has been incorporated into the ISIMND to address impacts to the ' CDFG jurisdictional areas. E-9 The County has no plans to develop the remaining portion (approximately six acres) of ' the project site at this time. However, the County wishes to have the option of being able to develop the remainder of the site for future park expansion. Any development plans proposed for the remaining six acres would be subject to future environmental analysis and CEQA documentation. . Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration . Page 6-19 0100 P/u. C,nron VM1,V ( M11 Joc OPM/0: 10::3.40 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses ' City of Santa Clarita L- EMR F �23920 Valencia Blvd. Phone S610 120 (661) 2554910 Santa Clatita Fax California 91355.2196 (661) 255.1996 March 14, 2001 Mr. Larry Hensley Acting Chief of Planning County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation ' 433 South Vermont Avenue, 4" Floor Los Angeles, CA 900210 ' Dear Mr. Hensley: SUBJECT: PLUM CANYON PARK- DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Santa Clarita's Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment ' on the above stated document. It is likely that the Plum Canyon Park and F-1 neighboring community will be annexed into the City in the future, and therefore, the City would then assume responsibility for the maintenance of Plum Canyon Park. ' During the programming of the Plum Canyon Park, the possibility for additional parking may become necessary. The softball field, during a normal T-ball season, would require parking for a minimum of 40 cars (20 spaces for those ' players on the field, and an additional 20 spaces for those arriving for the next F-2 game). In addition, the remainder of the site would require parking for the tennis court, basketball court, group picnic area, horseshoe pit, and the tot —lot play area all of which will be utilized during the same time period as the softball program. Additional comments regarding the park design are as follows: ' ' • The size of the restroom is extremely small, and should be increased to accommodate three stalls on the women and men's side of the restroom with two sinks on either side. ' The plan for the athletic field (pages 1-6) identifies lighting control to be F'3 located on the exterior of the restroom building. What lighting will this control? ' PRINTED ON RECY1110 PAPER Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-20 010038".Cji ' ro 01/MO. 10...M4,11 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr.Larry Hensley March 14, 2001 Page 2. • The athletic field is described as a baseball field. The City would recommend that it be referred to as a softball field and designed to softball specifications. . with the high demand on park space in the Santa Claritavalley, the City has determined that conflict reaults when placing an overlay sports field in the outfield of softball diamond, and this situation is to be avoided. As a result, the City would recommend eliminating the sports field overlay. Additional parking, or reducing the number of park components, may be necessary in order to reduce the traffic impact to the neighborhood. The City realizes that the site is outside its jurisdiction, and offers these comments with the expectation that the future maintenance and programming of Plum Canyon Paris will become the reaponsii!Oty of the City of Santa Clarita. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (661) 286-M. Sincerely, Tom Reilly Park Development Administrator F-3 (Cont'd) a ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/blitigated Negative Declaration 0100.1Ph'mcent-ON& dm0147VO: Io'.'sAll Page 6-21 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter F: Comment Number F-1 F-2 F-3 Response to Comments from the City of Santa Clarita Tom Reilly, Park Development Administrator Response The County concurs that it is likely that Plum Canyon County Park will be annexed into the City of Santa Clarita in the future. At that time, the City would assume the responsibility of park maintenance; however, the County will assume responsibility for park maintenance until that time. The proposed project would provide a total of 30 parking spaces. If parking demand exceeds on -site parking capacity during peak periods of use, the excess parking demand would be easily satisfied by on -street parking on Via Joyce Drive for short-term needs. The designs of the restroom and athletic field facilities are not environmental issues and, therefore, do not pertain to the CEQA process. The City's comments regarding these park design issues have been forwarded to the Department's Project Management Division for consideration. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-22 0100dPlansG1R1tlRVWY11ina11doe 01 )"0 10WA.11 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses sTnT1; OF CALIFORNIA t°.y3"��, Governor's Office of Planning and Research I� State Clearinghouse Gray Davis°tea erasctoa Govstu 01 March 21. 2001 Larry Rey Los Angeles Courtly 433 South Vetraoat Avetme Los Avacks. CA 90020 Subject Ph= Caayoa County Panic Derclopmeat SCIN: 2001021050 Dear Larry Hessler The eaclowd ea®eat (a) on your Noptivo Deel=etiou was (*ere) received by the State Claftbouso attar the tad of the a=1VVkw peri4 which closed on Match 14, 2001. We ere forww)dks 6An coawa n to you bscsuse shay provide iafo=tioa or raise issues than should be addressed in your final eavira=McM1 doe=eat T1w Catiforaufa E koamranl Quality Act does am rN kc Lead Arcades to mpoad to sate . How—. we -cowrie yes to ioeo:po:ate shoes additional eaamueats into your and docamtat sad to coasida ttxm prior to uldat beat action on the proposed psojea. Please Crean ft Sate Clarkghouso at (916) 445-0613 if you bave say Qaestioas eotaoesaias the =Yir00m8an1review p[otM If yet bave a quesdon retarding the aboveaaaated projoct. pkase tefa to the tradisat Sate C3ewinSboate txsmber (20010210S0) wbra coatscda8 this of 6ce. Skcct*. ' T.q RRoo sev or Planner. Sta Enclosures cc: Rasources ASS Y s,00 TIM-H s WIT r o. sox 1W SAMULM. CAUToaNto 938n-3*" 916-s.s-0s3 rxx 916-323-3a VW OMCti.caYlustiuNclsovs1"Tui G-1 ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-23 01005 Plum CaRmi'veot r (fleab.doe 0143"0. 10.,.'5 AM 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses srATzorcAuroxmA—nusn4ma-laANIPMAT=4ANDROuSMA004cY GILAYDAVIS' 000~ D"ARTMEN ' OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF ADVANCE MANNING DISTRICT 7.IGR OFFICE 1-I0C 120 SO. SPRING ST. Moe& 9, 2001 I= ANGE= CA 90012 10 M: (213) 997-6696 ATSS: 8- 647.6696 IGR=QA ca/010306 FAX: (213) 897.6317 NEO DEC Mr: Larry Liensoey County of I o$ Angela Department of Pula and Rcarxtim 433• S. Vamant AM 4th lloa Los Angeles, CA 90920 : Dear I& Lteuory: Plum Cacyon Cormty Park 2= M Via Joyca Dr. V= IA-126.12 s6 SCRO2001021030 RECEIVED M"02001� Or STATE Ihwk'you for faelu&og Ca m= in the atvironmeatsl roriowpr000as foe iba ibwa-meatiew1 project: 1 B&W on the kf rmstim racdv4 wa haw no cemmwu it this times Howovw, vm soommaod 69 G-2 crostn�ction related truck trips on Snow frooarays and higltwsys be limited to off-pesjc oom�mnto Periods sling owgested ceai&m t g rouhm mY c fxsdw, ro6udiag oak rwponsa► rtdbr so Gltrans IGR/CFQAIieootd st aro10306, and plme dons hesiWc to coatma me at (213) V7•4M Siao ay, it7►�g'btalSfgnedBy SVMMN BtJSWELI. If3R/CEEQA ftW=1Jl=W cc: Mr. Soon MMM. Stau Clewingboaso Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-24 ' 01003Plum CamnnNegltr Timel/rlM l/1RJ•'0; I0::5d0l 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter G: Response to Comments from the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Terry Roberts, Senior Planner Comment Number Response G-1 The State Clearinghouse received comments from the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) after the end of the state review period, which closed on March 14, 2001. However, these comments are still considered and have been incorporated in this document. G-2 Caltrans has no comments on the project at this time. Caltrans' recommendation that construction -related truck trips on State freeways and highways be limited to off-peak commute periods along congested corridors has been considered. As stated in Section XV, Transportation/Circulation, no more than five delivery trips would be expected per day, largely because all heavy equipment would be staged on -site. Due to the limited number of vehicle and truck trips expected per day, construction activities would not alter normal traffic conditions around the project site. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-25 010W PGun ca mvm Sevdce u7smill sloe 0N3101 10F.'s 131 � I 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses LETTER H I COUNTY OF LOS A►NGELES DEPARTM.ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ALHANOTA. CALMAMA 916'J7.137t ]AMLS A. NOYLS, Db dw iBtPbo-r (62�) �H•] 100 ADORLit ALL OOR>if+CC TO: ' f.0.9=1uo March 27, 2001 ALHAMPA.CAUTORMA,11U490 MIIVIYftlAU WM4 RD TOr" Mr. Larry R. Hensley, Department Facility Planner 11 ' County of Los Angeles , rOISwO UNIMMd Department of Parks and Recreation 433 South Vermont Avenue, 4th Floor �QQZ c p �dV ' Los Angeles. CA 90020-1975 Dear Mr. Hensley- . M1303H ' RESPONSE TO A DRAFT INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Initial Study/MiNgated Negative ' Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Plum Canyon County Park. Although we have not completed the review of the IS/MND, we offer the following comments. We will forward additional comments when we complete our review. DoslaII Under Section 3. Hydrology and Water Quality were discussed in subsection VIII. More specifically, paragraphs (c) through (f) stated that existing drainage pattern would be maintained and runoff would be directed to the local drains. The amount of runoff would not substantially increase and no mitigation measures were required. Therefore, at this time, we have no comment H-1 In the event that the subject project will result in the connection to or modiflcation of any of the Department's drainage facilities or increase the flow into the storm drain system, a permit must be secured from the Department's Construction Division, Permits Section on the Sth floor. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Carl Chow at (626) 458-7853 or Mr. Greg Even at (626) 458-7994. n ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-26 01003 Nam <'anron Y vJv OwdAdoc 014WO. 10; ..1 All 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr. Larry R. Hensley March 27, 2001 Page 2 Environmental Programs Should any operation within the subject redevelopment project include the constrtctionfinstallation, modification, or removal of underground storage tanks and/or industrial waste control or disposal facilities, this Department's Environmental Programs Division must be contacted for required approvals and operating permits. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Storm water Permit issued to Los Angeles County and 85 cities by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board on July 15, 1996, required the development and implementation of programs addressing storm water pollution issues In development planning for private projects. Part of the resulting program to resolve these storm water pollution issues is a Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). All development and redevelopment projects which fall into one of the SUSMP project types, characteristics or activities must obtain SUSMP approval. Additionally, the appropriate post construction Best Management Practices selected and incorporated into the project plans should be in compliance with the local jurisdiction's Development Planning Program and the SUSMP. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, 'please contact Mr. Siyavash Araumi at (626) 458-4991. Land Development (Grading and Drainage) H-2 H-3 The applicant shati submit a drainage concept for review and approval prior to approval of these environmental documents. This project may -also impact water quality and should incorporate permanent post -construction Best Management Practices to mitigate this H-4 impact. These plans must be reviewed by this department priorto issuance of any permits. If you have any questions in regard to the above comments, please contact Mr. Perfecto Tobias at (626) 458-4921. Land Development(Geology and Soils) ' The proposed project will not have significant environmental effects from a geology and soils standpoint, provided the appropriate ordinances and codes are followed. I H-5 If you have any questions in regard to the above comments, please contact Mr. Fred Gharib at (626) 458-4923. ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-27 01003 Plmn COINIVa Nerke (roMilbw el : +'0: 10 V 4.11 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Mr. Larry R. Hensley March 27, 2001 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding the environmental reviewing process of this Department, please contact Mr. Craig David at the address on the first page or at (626) 458-6311. Very trdfyyour% J S A. NOYES re fJ-BOM iC W ROD TO Assis t Deputy Director Watershed Management Division MM:sw C.��peV�ml2Q,v�d Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-28 01008P1.MC".' a \1w1,rAfinnp.dw Ol'73'0: 10;9A,41 LI 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter H: Response to Comments from the County of Los Angeles P h' g ' Department of Public Works, Watershed Management Division Rod H. Kobomoto, Assistant Deputy Director Comment ' Number Response H-1 According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW), it has no comments on the Draft IS/MND at this time. However, in the event that the proposed project would result in the connection to or modification of any of DPW's drainage facilities or increase the flow into the storm drain system, the proposed project would obtain any required permits from DPW. H-2 Underground storage tanks. (USTs) and industrial waste control or disposal facilities are not currently present on the project site. The proposed project would not involve construction/installation, modification, or removal of USTs or industrial waste control or disposal facilities. H-3 As discussed in Section VM, Hydrology and Water Quality, construction of Plum Canyon County Park would disturb approximately seven acres of land area; therefore, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required for the project. Compliance with the permit requirements would ensure that storm water runoff -related impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Permit requirements include obtaining Standard Urban .. Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) approval and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during project construction and operation. H-4 The County will submit a drainage concept to DPW for review and approval prior to approval of the proposed project and certification of the Final IS/MND. As part of the NPDES permit, permanent post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into the project design to minimize impacts to water quality. H-5 As stated by DPW, the proposed project would comply with all applicable ordinances and codes; therefore, it would not have significant environmental effects from a geology and soils standpoint. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-29 OIObSPUu 61+10NI,7- ,10rOl/a/0.10.:5 Ill 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses LETTER I ' California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region Winston H. Hkkox 320 W. 4th Swat. Suite 200, Los Anttles. California 90013 Gray Davis ' scoavy for Phone (213) 576-6600 FAX (213) 5764640 CVWM r $xWonmental IMtrnatAddress: bTV*,VW-4V4Cb.ea.=ov/—rr•yeb4 Protectkn ' April 30, 2001 RECEIVE County of Los Angeles Ann' Larry Hensley IA AY t, 2001 433 South Vermont Av.--- Los Angeles, CA 90020 pi,ANNING DIVISION Dear Sir or Madams, Re;CE!QA Documentation for Project in the Santa Clara Watershcd Plum Canyon County Park Development; SCH No. 200102050 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the CEQA documentation for the above - mentioned project. For your information a list of permitting requirements and Regional Board Contacts is provided in Attachment A hereto. The project site lies in the Santa Clara watershed that was listed as being impaired pursuant to Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act. Impairments listed in reaches downstream from the ' proposed project include nutrients and their effects, salts, coliform bacteria, and historic pesticides. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board will be developing Total Maximum Daily Loads C MDLs) for the watershed, but the proposed project is cxpectedlo 1 proceed before applicable TMDLs are adopted. In the interims, the Regional Board must carefully evaluate the potential impacts ofnew projects that may discharge to impaired waterbodies. Our review of your documentation shows that it does not include information on how this project ' will change the loading of these pollutants into the watershed. Please provide the following additional information for both the construction and operational phases of the project. • for each constituent listed above, please provide an estimate oMe concentration (ppb) and load OWday) from non -point and point source discharges. • Estimates of the amount of additional runoff generated by the project during wet and dry seasons. • Estimate of the amount of increased or decreased percolation due to the project. • Estimates of the net change in cubic feet per second of groundwater and surface water contributions under historic drought conditions (as compiled by local water purveyors, the Department of Water Resources, and others), and 10-year 50-year, and 100-year flood conditions. California .6nvhvnmentd Protection Agency RrgYled P.Oe 0-Miuton 4 toPraterre and enhance the gnaliry ofCakfanla f %we-rzroi rwpr else b"eflr ofpmctt andfutwo ttesraaotu. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-30 010M Phan Canto. Xr Jce (rim it 'loc OVINVO. 1013.e,11 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Page 2 of 2 -2- April 30, 2001 If you have any questions please call me at (213) 576 6683 or Rick Vergets at (213) 576 6688. Sincerely, Elizabeth Erickson Associite Geologist, TMDL Unit *Lot Arigel6s-Regional Water Quality Control Board EE Attachments (1) cc: State Clearinghouse File Calijornla Environmearal.Prorecdlon Agency Recycled Paper pur w(slion Is to p►uerve aAd ehAanee the Quallly of Caltfor 4'J wales ntourcet for the btrcltr ofprac�u pnd fYfYrt saeratiant. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-31 O1003PlumC'aM%VIVgdV(fI&d).def 0l/.,".10,`.3.01 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses ATTACHMENTA ✓ If the proposed project will rasutt in a discharge of dredge or fill Into a surface water (including a dry streembed). and is subject to a federal license or permit, the project may require a Section 401 Water Quarity Cerrikcabon, or waiver of Waste Oischargo Requirements. For further Informatjn. please contact: Anthony Kiocna. Nonpoint Source Unit at (213) 576.6785. ✓ If the project involves Inland disposal of nonhazardous contaminated sons and materials, the proposed project may be subject to Waste Discharge Requirements. For further information, please contact Rodney Nelson, Landfills Unit, at (213) 576.6719. ✓ If the overall project area Is larger than rive acres, 8re proposed protect may be subject to the State Boon fs General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. For furMor information, please contact: Tracy Woods, Statewide General Construction Activity Storm Water Pormits at (213) 576.6684. ✓ If the project Involves a facility that is proposing to dtsdtarge storm water associated with Industrial activity (e.g., manufacturing, recycling and transportation faciittles, etc.), the facility may be subject to the State Boards General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit. For further Information. please Contact Kristle Chung. Statewide General Industrial Storm Water Permits at (213) 576-6807. ✓ It the proposed project Involves requirements for now developmont and Construction pertaining to municipal =tort; water programs, please Contact Dan Raduroscu, Municipal Storm Water Permits. Los Angeles County at (213) $76-6668: Mau Yeager, Municipal Storm Water Permits. Ventura County at (213) 576.6749. ✓ The proposed project also shall comply with the oral regulations associated with the applicable Regional Board stormwater permit Loa Anaelos County and 92:2ormZtoes NPOI:S N0. CAS614001 Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 96-054. Long Scan Cgpntv and Co.o nI tae5: NPOES CAS004003 waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 99-060. Ventura County and Co-cem+ittecs, NPOES No. CAS004W2 Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 00.108., ✓ If the proposed project involves any construction and/or groundwater dowatering to be dlschargod to surface ' waters, the project may be subject to NPOE&JWaste Discharge Requirements. For further information, please contact: Augustine AnTielo, General Permitting and Special Projects Unit at (213) 576-6657 (All Region 4 Watersheds). ✓ 'If the proposed project involves any Construction and/or groundwater dowatoring to be discharged to land or ' groundwater, the project may be subject to Waste Discharge Requirements, For further Information, please Contact: Kwang4l Leo, Non-Chaptor 15 Unit, at (213) 576.6666 (All Region 4 Watersheds). Revised :Match 19.2001 Plunt Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-32 0100SPlum t +n+xn;\'tn/rr�Gmalldx 0MJ/0110.:J.Idr 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses ' Letter I: Response to Comments from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board P g Q h' ' Los Angeles Region, TMDL Unit Elizabeth Erickson, Associate Geologist Comment ' Number Response I-1 This comment letter was received after the close of the public comment period, which ended on March 14, 2001; however, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation appreciates the comments provided by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB's comments have been reviewed, and the issues discussed are best addressed during the preparation of the permits and plans required for the proposed project, including the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the Stormwater, Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan'(SUSWMP), which will identify measures and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to groundwater and water quality. With the implementation of the above plans and BMPs, the proposed project would not impair downstream reaches of the Santa Clara watershed. The proposed project would contribute little, if any, nutrients, salts, coliform bacteria, and pesticides to the watershed. To comply with and implement the NPDES permit, specific BMPs would be required by the County and various regulatory entities. The SWPPP and the SUSWMP, which would be required for the project, would also specify the BMPs to be implemented. Examples of some general BMPs that would be anticipated for. the project include the following: Construction Schedule excavation and grading work for dry weather. • Use as little water as possible for dust control. • Never hose down dirty pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled; sweep up dry spilled materials immediately; clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soil, and report significant spills to the appropriate spill response agencies immediately. • Maintain all vehicles and heavy equipment; frequently inspect for leaks. Conduct all vehicle/equipment maintenance and refueling at one location, away from storm drains; perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle/equipment washing off site;.use drip pans or drop cloths to catch drips and spills, if draining and replacing ' motor oil, radiator coolant, or other fluids on site; and do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment or parts. ' Keep construction materials out of the rain. Store both dry and wet materials under cover, protected from rainfall and runoff. Also protect dry materials from the wind. 1 ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-33 07005 PhinC�mvn \,, � ' «r%r !.� Ol/;1/0: l0,•a l it 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter I: Response to Comments from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Continued) Los Angeles Region, TMDL Unit Elizabeth Erickson, Associate Geologist Comment Number Response I-1 Construction (Continued) • Secure open bags of cement to keep windblown, cement powder away from streets, gutters, storm drains, rainfall and runoff. • Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contaminants from contactng stormwater runoff. • Utilize revegetation, if feasible, for erosion control after clearing, grading, or excavating. • Cover stockpiles and excavated soil with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. • Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary; consider planting temporary vegetation for erosion control on slopes or where construction is not immediately planned, and plant permanent vegetation as soon as possible. Operation • Do not overwater landscaping. Conserve water by using irrigation practices such as drip irrigation, soaker hoses or micro -spray systems. • Do not blow or rake leaves into the street, gutter, or storm drains. • Use plant vegetation that is native, non-invasive, drought tolerant, and pest tolerant to minimize chemical and labor use over the short/long-term; minimum use of pesticides and/or fertilizers would reduce the potential for chemical/nutrient runoff or ground permeation to affect the water quality in the area. • Use organic or non -toxic fertilizers. • Do not over -fertilize and do not fertilize near ditches, streams or other water bodies. • Store pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals in a covered area to prevent runoff. The proposed project would involve the development of a local park, which would consist of site utilities and infrastructure, off-street parking, walkways, children's play area, tots play area, restroom building and maintenance area, group picnic shelter, basketball court, tennis court, multi -purpose athletic field. Some of these uses would create new impervious surfaces. As stated on page 3-12 of the Draft ISavm, the impervious area of the project site would be less than 0.25 acre after project Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pagc 6-34 O1003 Plum Con,»n Vevice glnrrb w 0l N/0: 10.1.1. 1 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Responses Letter I: Response to Comments from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Continued) Los Angeles Region, TMDL Unit Elizabeth Erickson, Associate Geologist Comment Number Response I-1 development; currently, the site is unpaved, undeveloped, and consists entirely of pervious surface. The remainder of the park would continue to allow subsurface infiltration through the grass lawns and landscaped areas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly change the amount of surface water runoff, percolation, and groundwater beneath the project site. The County will coordinate with the RWQCB during the permitting and final design process. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/�iNtitigated Negative Declaration Page 6-35 01004 Plum C anvon wY vIer (final; doe OItJJ.'0: !0.•13 At1 7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6 (Assembly Bill 3180) requires that mitigation measures ' identified in environmental review documents prepared in accordance with CEQA are implemented after a project is approved. Therefore, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures during the final plans and 1 specifications,.eonstruction, and operation of the Plum Canyon County Park Project. The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation is the agency responsible for ' implementation of the six mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. This MMRP provides the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation with a convenient mechanism for quickly reviewing all the mitigation measures including the ability to focus on select information such as timing and ' implementation phase. The MMRP includes the following information: • the phase of the project during which adoption of the mitigation measure should be implemented ' • the phase of the project during which the implementation of the mitigation measure should be monitored; ' • the enforcement agency; and, • the monitoring agency. The MMRP also includes a checklist to be used during the mitigation monitoring period. The checklist will verify the name of the monitor, the date of the monitoring activity, and any related remarks for each ' mitigation measure. 1 ' Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page7-1 0107At''rnl» �ezlrelfm.U.dUr 01f:3'0. M 3 1,It 7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Implementation Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Verification of Compliance Mitigation pleasure Phase' Phase Agency Agency Initial Date Remarks BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES �l-IV.1: The County shall mitigate impacts Prior to During offsite California California to the CDFG jurisdictional drainages by construction mitigation Department of Department of Fish .ontributing to a mitigation fund through the activities Fish and Game and Game payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off -site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve. M-IV.2: If disturbance of suitable nesting Prior to and Prior to and during California County of L.A. habitat occurs during the nesting season during vegetation vegetation removal Department of (Department (February 15 through August 31), a qualified removal of of suitable nesting Fish and Game providing biologist shall conduct a general bird survey suitable nesting habitat construction contract within a 300-foot buffer from the limits habitat _ management) ofgrading no more than 15 days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed. During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300-foot buffer from the limits of construction. Ifa nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7-2 01008 Plum Canwn Negdee (fuml).doc 0112"210:25.01 7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 6 — (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Implementation T Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Phase' Phase Agency Agency Initial Date Remarks CULTURAL RESOURCES , M-V.I : If previously unidentified cultural Final Plans and During construction California County of L.A. resources, including a potential fcature or Specifications activities Native (Department intact deposit, arc exposed during ground and during American providing doturbing constriction activities, work shall construction Heritage construction contract be halted in that area, and the feature: will activities Commission management) need to be assessed for significance by a , qualified archaeologist. NOISE M-Xi.l: Project construction shall comply Final Plans and During construction County of L.A. County of L.A. with the County of Los Angeles Noise Code. Specifications activities Sheriffs (Department Construction activities shall be limited to the Department providing hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays- construction contract Fridays; prior written approval shall be management) obtained to conduct construction activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays. M-Xi.2: All construction. equipment, Final Plans and During construction County of L.A. County of L.A. stationary and mobile, shall be equipped Specifications activities. Department of (Department ' with properly operating and maintained Public Works, providing muffling devices. Building and construction contract Safety Division management) M-X1.3: Temporary noise mufilcrs and noise Final Plans and During construction County of L.A. County of L.A. attenuating devices, particularly along the Specifications activities. Department of (Department northern boundary of the project site Public Works, providing adjacent to the single-family residences, Building and construction contract shall be employed to reduce noise generated Safety Division management) during construction. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7-3 01003 Plum Candor Ngdec (final).dbc 0112":10. SS Ad1 7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE 6 — (Continued) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Implementation Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Phaser Phase Agency Agency Initial Date Remarks UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS M-XVI.I: Prior to completion of plans and Final Plans and During park County of L.A. County of L.A. . specifications, the County of Los Angeles Specifications construction and Department of Department of Public Department of Parks and Recreation shall operation Public Works Works include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and the development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and implemented whenever possible. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the incorporation of this requirement. M-XVI.2: Prior to completion of plans and Final Plans and During park County of L.A. County of L.A. specifications, the County of Los Angeles Specifications construction and Department of Department of Public Department of Parks and Recreation shall operation Public Works Works clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the incorporation of this requirement. Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 74 010W Plum Conm Negdee (rwl).doe 01/7"210.21 All APPENDIX A VISTA INFORMATION SOLUTIONS SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT (HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE SITES) 1'luw Canyon County Park Protect Final Initial Study/iNlitigated Negative Declaration OfWIOf"n ( ,n%,MNv,edm(r1naJAJv 1111):rt)110) 11 11 SiTE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT PROPERTY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION Project Name/Ref #: 01008 Eric Wilson Plum Canyon Park KEA Environmental 28222 N. Via Joyce Road 250 S. Grand Avenue # 3920A Saugus, CA 91350 Los Angeles, CA 91016 Cross Street: Plum Canyon Road Latitude Lon itude: 34.449085, 118.489896 Site Distribution Summary Agency / Database - Type of Records within 1/8 mile 1/8ro 114 mile 1/4to 112 mile 1/2ro 1 Milo A) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA NPL National Priority List 0 0 0 0 US EPA CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State equivalent priority list 0 0 0 0 8) Databases searched to 1/2 mile: STATE SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list 0 0 0 - US EPA CERCLiS ! Sites currently or formerly under review NFRAP by US EPA 0 0 0 - US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment, storage, disposal facilities 0 0 0 - STATE REG LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks CO 0 0 0 - STATE/ SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, REG/CO incinerators, or transfer stations 0 0 0 - STATE DEED RSTR Sites with deed restrictions 0 0 0 - STATE CORTESE State Index of properties with hazardous waste 0 0 0 - STATE TOXIC PITS Toxic Pits cleanup facilities 0 0 0 - USGS/STATE WATER Federal and State Drinking Water WELLS Sources 0 0 0 - STATE SPILLS State spills list 0 0 0 - iv For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc, at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Voislon 2.7 Pogo #1 Site Distribution Summary Agency / Database - Type of Records within 118 Milo 118to 114 mile 1/4to 112 mile 112to 1 Mlle C) Databases searched to 1/4 mile: US EPA RCRA Viol RCRA violations/enforcement actions 0 0 - - US EPA TRIS Toxic Release Inventory database 0 0 - - STATE UST/AST Registered underground or aboveground storage tanks 0 0 - - COUNTY UNIQUE CO Unique county databases 0 0 - - D) Databases searched to 1/8 mile: US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills 0 - - - US EPA GNRTR RCRA registered small or large generators of hazardous waste 0 - - - This report meets the ASTM standard E-1527 for standard federal and state government database research In a Phase I environmental site assessment. A (-) Indicates a distance not searched because it exceeds these ASTM search parameters. , UMITATION OF UABIUTY Custemef proceeds at Its own risk In choosing to rely on VISTA services, in whole or in part, prior to proceeding with any transaction. VISTA cannot be an Insurer of the accuracy of the Information, errors occurring In conversion of data, or for customor's use of data. VISTA and Its offilloted companies, officers, agents, employees and Independent contractors cannot be hold liable for accuracy, storage, delivery, loss or expense suffered by customer resulting directly or Indirectly from any Information provided by VISTA. NOTES For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Verslon 2.7 Page #2 i SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT Map of Sites within One Mile lz� a _. Pom C �........ K a r J O / 1 � 1 t / t, 1 / I / 1 / 1 / I / ` y / �C I I / 1 / St 0 0 • — y o 0 0.25 0.5 / D osi Dr Miles Category: A B C D Subject Site Databases Searched to: 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. 1/8 mi. Single Sites ;'� Q Multiple Sites /' O Highways and Major Roads NPL, SPL, CERCLIS\ RCRA VIOL, ERNS, Roads CORRACTS NFRAP, TRIS, UST GENERATORS Railroads (TSD) TSD, LUST, Rivers or Water Bodies SWLF, SCL If additional databases are listed in the cover page of the report they are also displayed ' Utilities on this map. The map symbol used corresponds to the database category letter A,B,C,D. For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Page #3 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT Street Map N colhav n Dr cc 0 it Q�d ............ Fra n w S e r eta Shi e 4 0' 0 • U11 coo ...... 1 / 1 Doro h St Lewen 0 t 0 Ermt =r 0 0.25 0.5 D as, Or Miles Highways and Major Roads Subject Site Roads Railroads Rivers or Water Bodies Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Page #4 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT SITE INVENTORY PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA A B C D a - MAP (within 1/8 mile) LL IDj ? wow O U VISTA ID a U p P Ix U +�+ a I O U, DI ETCTION Z U Cn (n U Cn U 3 WEDO: R>> W O No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA A B C D �- MAP (within 1/8 - 1/4 mile) U,ID N in a. 3 O U VISTA ID <N�OH� LU DIREMON a. Z U vai vUi U � v3i 0 U� 3 i! D Z5 W O No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA A B C D �- MAP (within 1/4 -1/2 mile) LL J O ID H LU Q U VISTA ID DISTANCE aQavW U p�3O p 0 X �ao +�+ � a O DIRECTION Z U vn v� U _+ <n LOU U �- 3 h U"'NZ�z p LU U� No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA A B C D �- MAP (within 1/2 -1 mile) LL O ID U z LU -J O_ U VISTA ID a U r, p U O H DISTANCEaQM0Ljj DIRECTION Z U v) in U WO p U oaa x �lnZz > 9 LU (9 No Records Found X = search criteria; - = tag -along (beyond search criteria), For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Verson 2.7 Pogo #5 A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES 3 O H N 3 0 LY V 1� � �LU � W WUW�tN/f.a Q' I-- J a= �_ N VISTA ID a Z O U a to (� N W U N� F- 3 N W Cf O U O 1-• a O. N QS V y F� N Z M W Z PACIFIC BELL SAGSCAI 1 KC575 65134365 20660 PLUM CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 EXXON CO USA 65143197 27716 VIOLIN CANYON RD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 CASTAIC SPORTS COMPLEX - LA CO 65747270 31230 CASTAIC RD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 USDA FOREST SERV LOS ALMOS STA 65125MJ 0 T7N-R18W-SEC17 X CASTAIC, CA 91310 HANCOCK OIL CO 65147316 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 RUDCO FABRICATION 65131989 24930 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS DISTR ' 6516=3 27242 HENRY MAYO DR X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 US ORGANIC SYSTEM/KING DISPOSAL, INCO5180237 22925 NORTH COLTRANE STREET X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 BURNETT PROPERTY 6564MO WARWITH RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 T D ELECTRIC 65127968 16529 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 EXXON COUSA 65743230 27101 SAUGUS-VEN RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 CASTAIC MIDDLE SCHOOL 65147268 28300 HILLCREST PKWY X CASTAIC, CA 91310 GLASS CRAFT CO 65742188 26101 MAGIC MOUNTAIN PKWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 CHARLIE CANYON 65746786 0 CASTAIC X CASTAIC, CA 91310 CHARLIES MOBILE 65146788 16411 DE LONE RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). , For more 'information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 6 erston 2,7 Page #6 , A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES • y Z y `�' O U Q �J U.UJLU �O >;U,WU J 0.0 LU c O 0 U > wy 10 Z Uy U U) Ix UVISTA NEWHALL LAND FARMING CO 65135218 28769 CASTAIC CANYON RD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 TEXACO EXPLORATION PROD 65727956 0 HONOR RANCH OVD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 TEXACO TRADING AND TRANSPORT 65727753 24000 GOLDEN STATE HWY X CASTAIC, CA 91310 SULPHUR SPRINGS MAINTDEPTE 65128527 16400 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 REPUBLIC SHEET METAL WORKS 66732716 16385 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 LONG BEACH OIL DEVELOPMENT COM 65137415 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 AUTON MOTORIZED SYSTEMS 65149331 28220 CROCKER AVE X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 VALENCIA TECHNICAL SYSTEMS 65725366 24730 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 SIERRA BLOCK 65729875 16970 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 99 CUT -COVER 65722302 0 CASTAIC X CASTAIC, CA 91310 DELTA DIRECT ACCESS 65144846 27460 SCOTT AVE X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 SOLAR TRUCKING 65129767 30315 ROMERO CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 TEXACO INC ABSORPTION CO 65727565 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 TEXACO INC GAS PLANT 65127566 23900 THE OLD RD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 PW GILLIBRAND CO 65133365 13900 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Verslon 2 7 Pcge #7 A B C D a Q UNMAPPED SITES W Z W W O U 00 J LL k' �O U a 5 Q= Uj • VISTA ID a Z U a rn V CO W U 0 r- us W G U O �- 3 ww � O ,y > Z > z uw Z U' TEXACO INC INJ WELLS 65727667 0 HONOR RANCH OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 STANDARD OIL CO 65728637 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 CROWN CENTRAL PETRO CORP 65145120 0 TAPIA CANYON OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 RAM ENTERPRISES INC 65732866 24940 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 SAM ENTERPRISES INC 65737744 0 TAPIA CANYON OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 NORWALK PROPERTIES 4044206 T5N R1 RW 525 R1 RW 525 X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 CLAYTON VALLEY AUTO REPAIR 65745968 28930 SAM PL X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 PAIR -A -SCOPE 65134494 26101 MAGIC MOUNTAIN PKWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 CAROLES IRON WORKS 65747152 19646 BARINGTON ST X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 GOODYEAR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 65742026 27201 TORUNEY RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 VINTAGE PETROLEUM INC 65725239 0 HONOR RANCH OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 VINTAGE PETROLEUM HONOR RANCHO 65125238 24000 GOLDEN STATE HWY X CASTAIC, CA 91310 EMCO FLUID SYSTEMS 65143667 24910 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 HONOR RANCHO OIL FIELD 65140684 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD 1XI CASTAIC, CA 91310 DOUGLAS OIL CO 65144470 0 HONOR RANCH OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Ven)on?,7 Pogo #8 11 11 11 A B C D c. UNMAPPED SITES , U , L. N W a 30 U U {J., N LU LU � ¢ W �d �y33 — �I ~ NLLA 2+ 'a Ix x ~ � N � Z � VISTA ID Z U ai (0 U �- U)G U 3 'n >> w 0 SANTA CLARITA WATER CO 65131507 21110 GOLDEN TRIANGLE RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91380 CAPA INDUSTRIES 65147407 24927 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 AM -CAL INDUSTRIES INC 657507W 0 TAPIA CANYON OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 PROFOUND AUTO DETAILING 65733251 18122 FLYNN DR X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 MYERS TRANSMISSION 65736339 27538 OAK SPRING CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 KOBI TIRE CENTER 65138960 27134 SIERRA AVE X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 FRANMAR MFGINC 65142714 24927 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 RAINBOW GLENN DEVELOPMENT 7297888 RAINBOW GLENN X CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 SEE 1-970 65730676 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 NORTH FORK # 7434,147 T4N R13W33 X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LA CO FD FIRE STA 077 65738699 47376 RIDGE ROUTE RD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 IMAGE FACTOR 65140564 24927 AVE TIBBITTS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 76 PRODUCTS STATION #6499 7434389 28529 SAND CNYN X CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOU 7429797 31849 LAKE HUGES X CASTAIC, CA 91310 MIKE BARRETT COTR44966 37081 65736366 0 PLUM CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 i X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Volslon 2.7 Poge #9 A B C D IL UNMAPPED SITES z 3 O ` w P CL O U • Q V U.� o= U) V Ot W�� \ LU LU a CX Cx J N in H H 'S 'ot Z w VISTA ID Z U (n U Ct U co > > U' SWANSON MECHANICAL 65728356 16515 CANYON LN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 RAINBOW OHARA PUBLICATION 65133176 24715 AVE ROCKEFELLER X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91380 RAINBOW OHARA PUBLICATIONS 65133177 24715 AVE ROCKEFELLER X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91380 SWANSON DUMP 65128355 0 CASTAIC X CASTAIC, CA 91310 ATLANTIC OIL CO 65749546 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 PETROMINERALS CORP 65133849 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 PETROMINERALS CORP 230 65133857 0 TAPIA CANYON OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 JACASLA OIL CORP 65740238 0 CASTAIC HILLS OLFD X CASTAIC, CA 91310 FAA-RMLR QSS 65143303 HI -VISTA X CASTAIC, CA 91310 PETES AUTO ELECTRIC 65733878 16280 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 UNION OIL COMPANY 7432070 DEL VALLE OIL FIELD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 BILL SMALLS MUD SUMP 65180346 AT END OF AVENUE OF THE OAKS X SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 CASTAIC CLAY MANUFACTURIN 7433728 3230 OLD RIDGE RT X CASTAIC, CA 91310 TAYLORS IMPORT AUTO SERVICE 65727789 26044 TOURELLA PL X R SANTA CLARITA, CA VAL VERDE WATER DIST 65726727 30000 SAN MARTINEZ RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Vealon 27 Page #70 A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES LL v ? y N W 3 J O U a a LU � v' Ja. J 0i 1-N~ in W0 H W 0 X~� O N Fad.. Z '�^ VISTA /D Z U to to V 1--. J in V (N N» W V HASA PRODUCTS CO INC 65741051 25950 SPRINGBROOK AVE X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 USDA FOREST RED MOUNTAIN STA 65726526 0 T6N-R16W-S34NE1 4 X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 VALLEY STOCK RANCH 65125411 HASKELL CYN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 VASQUEZ CANYON DUMP 65125470 0 VASQUEZ CYN RD ' X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 NUEVO ENERGY COMPANY 651OW59 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 OAK CANYON OIL FIELD 65735089 0 OAK CANYON OLFD 1 X i SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 I I I UNION OIL COMPANY/UNOCAL STATION 13567756 DEL VALLE OIL FIELD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 NEWHALL LAND FARMING CO 66735214 27671 CHIQUITO CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 UNOCAL CORPORATION 65125792 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 VALENCIA SHELL 65725357 24301 VALENCIA BLVD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 HASLEY CYN OILFIELD 65147055 29007 HASLEY CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 HOWARD PATRICIA JACKSON 65740722 9115 YUCA HILLS RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 VINTAGE PETROLEUM 65125237 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 MOERUSSELL 65135790 BOUQUET CYN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 AGUA DULCE HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIVAT4MX SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 NEWHALL TIRE 65736247 24203 SAN FERNANDO RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Velton 27 page #/ I A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES , J P_ O U Q J {yy, W N 3 {may U vi U N V O W 0 VISTA ID Z (U F- o N cr WESTERN DISCOVERY USA 65124268 0 OAK CANYON OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 DECALTA INTERNATIONAL CORP 65144767 30617 THE OLD RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 MOERUSSELL 65735797 PLUM CANYON X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 MOJAVE TUNGSTEN REF CO 65135803 LANG X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 HERLEY-KELLEY OIL CO 65141176 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 TRIANGLE ROCK PRODUCT 65126594 13500 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 HATHAWAY COMPANY 65141067 0 OAK CANYON OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 ACTON REHABILITATION CTR 65757224 29304 ARRASTRE CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 "' THE TERMO CO 65127544 0 OAK CANYON OVD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 TRIANGLE ROCK PRODUCTS 65126596 13900 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 FRIENDLY VALLEY COMM CTR 65742786 26501 SIERRA HWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 DEL VALLE OIL FIELD 65144823 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 DEPT WP NUCLEAR PLANT 65144526 SAN FRANC CY RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 THOMPSON OIL COMPANY 65127191 0 RAMONA OILFIELD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 TIDEWATER OIL CO 65727376 SAN FRANC CY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Version 2.7 Pogo #12 I � I i I � I I I I A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES 3 N Z N = "" 0 0 U W LU U X /� J (� Z J j ai 0 J U Q °- U N\ '- �n Z L Z VISTA 1D Z U v�i U �' v�i o 3�o:�»�O CURTIS CONSTRUCTION CO 65145200 12101 SOLEDAD CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 HI -EX CORPORATION 65747233 PLUM CANYON X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 CURTIS CONSTRUCTION CO 65745207 14320 SOLEDAD CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 CURTIS SAND GRAVEL 65145204 14320 SOLEDAD CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 CLOUGHERTY PACKING CO 65745999 BOUQUET CYN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 DIXIE DIESEL TRUCK STOP 657,W27 29471 THE OLD RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SWEETWATER AGGREGATES 65728362 14212 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SOLEDAD CANYON OPERATIONS 65729756 13900 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SUPERIOR OIL CO 65128276 0 DEL VALLE OLFD # X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 TIRE PROS TOWN COUNTRY 65726963 24203 SAN FERNANDO RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 ARGENT CORP 65749686 0 AGUA DULA CR X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 DOWNEY LAND LIMITED 65744143 0 CHARLIE CANYON OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 MCFARLAND ENERGY INC 65736441 0 RAMONA OILFIELD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SHELL OIL 204-8066-0214 65130133 24301 VALENCIA BLVD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SEE 1-742 651,10654 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 iw X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more Information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Vealon 27 Pogo #13 • A B C D UNMAPPED SITES Z {y� ? C U • W � Q Q � N gx C VISTA /D Z U (n U Cn in U 3 U) 9X >> W (9 SEE 1-10092 65731016 23747 MAGIC MOUNTAIN PKWY X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SEE 1-13695 65737054 37000 CLEARCREEK RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 TORCH OPERATING COMPANY 65727709 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 PW GILLIBRAND CO 65733366 13900 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY 65747266 32700 LAKE HUGHES RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LUSTGARTEN OIL CO 65137233 BOUQUET CYN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 PW GILLIBRAND CO 65133364 13500 LANG STATION RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LYONS C J HOG RANCH 65137271 BOUQUET CYN X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 SANTA FE ENERGY CO 65131621 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 PETROMINERALS CORP 657.33850 29007 HASLEY CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LONG BEACH OIL DEVELOPMENT CO 65137414 29007 HASLEY CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LA CO FD CAMP 011 65138635 8800 SOLEDAD CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 ' L A CITY DWP - POWER PLANT 1 651,?X93 37000 CLEARCREEK RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 BOUQUET CYN OILFIELD 65748397 BOUQUET CYN OF X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 BOSKOVICH FARMS INC 65748366 27700 AVE SCOTT X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; - = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Version 2,7 Pogo #14 A B C D a UNMAPPED SITES U. W W O U �'� L VISTA IDZUu°ivViU NaU 3h >> W BONELLI SEWAGE TR PLANT 65148340 BOUQUET CYN RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 BENTLEY SIMONSON PARTNERSHIP 65748707 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LA CO DPW FLOOD PACOIMA DAM 65738890 15530 PACOIMA CYN RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LA CO ACTON REHAB CENTER 65738839 29304 ARRASTRE CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 GREEN VALLEY DUMP 65141809 0 SAN FRANCISQUITO CYN RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LBTH INC 65137803 0 DEL VALLE OLFD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDL PARK 65147964 HONEY STATION X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 LANG STATION 65738706 14320 SOLEDAD CANYON RD X SANTA CLARITA, CA 91350 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at I - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Vealon 2.7 Pogo #75 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT DETAILS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1 /8 mile) No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8 -1/4 mile) No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4 - 1/2 mile) No Records Found SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/2 -1 mile) No Records Found 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 vealon 27 Pogo #16 UNMAPPED SITES VISTA US ORGANIC SYSTEM/KING DISPOSAL, INC. VISTA ID#: 65180231 Address': 22925 NORTH COLTRANE STREET SANTA CLARITA, CA 0 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill / SRC# 163 Agency ID: 19-AA-5608 Agency Address: SAMEASABOW SWIS #: 19-AA-&08 Name: US ORGANIC SYSTEM/KING DISPOSAL INC. Location: 22925 NORTH COLTRANESMEET Place: SANTA CLARITA ' County: LOSANGELES Latitude: 34,38333 Longitude: -118.55 Operator.• US ORGANICS SYSTEMS/KINGDISPOSAL INC. Op Phone: 8187665464 Op Address: 22925 NORTH COL WANEST. Op City: SANTA CLARITA, Op State: CA Op Zip: 91355 Waste: GREENMAMPIALS Surrounding Land: AGRICULTURAL: OPEN SPA Cie COMMERCIAL Permit Thru Put: 200 CUBIC YARDS Permitted Capacity: 9950 CUBIC YARDS Permit Total Acreage: 5.00 SWIS #: 79AA•5W8 Activity: LARGE VOLUME TRANSFER/PROCFACIUTY Operator Status: PLANNED Regulatory Status: PROPOSED Inspection Freq: NONE SWIS #: 19AA-5608 Activity: COMPOSTING OPERATION (GREENWASTE) Operator Status: CLOSED Regulatory Status: NOTIFICATION Inspection Freq: NONE SWIS #: 79AA-5608 Owner: SAFE HARBORINVESTMENTSINCC, Ow Addr. 8405PEMSHINGDR., SUITE307 Ow City: MARINA DEL REY Ow State: CA Fields Not Reported by the Source RFIDate()), RFIAmendDate(1),Actucl ftuPut(1),AchrolCaoaclly(1), Actuol Agency for this Site: Y TotolAcreoge(1), PermltDlsposalAcreoge(l) ActuclDgoosclAcreoge(l), Ow Phone l , OwZ/ ) VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Verson 2.7 Poge #77 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. VISTA Address": RAINBOW GLENN DEVELOPMENT RAINBOW GLENN CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 VISTA ID#: 7291888 State Spills / SRC# 107 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Facility ID: 76 Remediation Status: NOFURTHERACUONREQU/RED TAISANTA BILL SMALL'S MUD SUMP VISTA ID#: 65180346 dressAT P END OF AVENUE OF THE OAKS CLARITA CA 0 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill / SRC# 163 Agency ID: 19-AA-5364 Agency Address: 54MEASABOVE SWIS #: 19-AA,53W Name: BILL SMALL SMUD SUMP Location: ATEND OFAVENUEOF ME OAKS Place: SANTA CLAR/TA County: LOSANGELES Latitude: 0 Longitude: 0 SWIS #: 79-A4 53U Activity: SOLID WANED/SPOSAL S17E Operator Status: CLOSED Regulatory Status: PRE -REGULATIONS Inspection Freq: 9UAR074Y SWIS #: 19A4 Owner. SEVERAL LAND OWNERS (HOMEOWNERS) Fields Not Reported by the Source Operotor(1), OpPhOWI), OpAddress(1), Op clty(1), OpStote(1), OpDp(1), Agency for this Site: g y Woste(1), SurroundingLord(1), RFIDote(1), RFIAmendDote(1), Pelmlt lhvPur(1), Actuol Thru PUt(1), Perm/tted Copoc/ty()), Actual Copo WI), Permit Totol Acreoge(1), Actual Totod Acreoge(l), Permit D1spOso1Acreoge(1), Aclvad Disposol Acr a 1, OwPhone 1 OwAdd 1, Ow CI ) , OwStot 1 , OwL 1 VISTA NION OIL COMPANY/UNOCAL STATION VISTA ID#: 13567756 AddressDEL ISANTA VALLE OIL FIELD CLARITA CA 91350 STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 164 EPA/A enc ID: N/A Agency Address: UNIONOX COMPANY UNOCAL STATI DEL VALLE OIL FIELD VALENCIA, CA 91.W Sitename: UNIONO/L COMPANY UNOCAL STATI Street: DEL VALLE OIL FIELD City: VALENCIA Zip: 9)350 Region: t Lea County: 19 Caseno: I-"96 Sitename: UNION OIL COMPANY UNOCAL STATI 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Version 2 7 Pogo #)8 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. City: VALENCIA Zip: ' 91350 Sub: 8006679 Leadagency: L Casetype: S Status: o Reviewdate: 811717987 Substance Desc: GASOLINE Casetype Desc: SOIL Reportdate: 51117985 Status Desc' NOACT/ON Fields Not Reported by the Source Streetno(l), CrosWreet(l), Countycode(l), Sbeetno(l), Subgty(l), Agency for this Site: g Abotemethd(l), DoteI(/), Date3c(7), DcWb(1), Date5c(1), DateSr(I), DOte7(1), Dotes l , Date9 1 VISTA Address*: AGUA DULCE HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION SANTA CLARITA CA 91350 VISTA ID#: 12725908 State Spills / SRC# 107 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address' AGUAOULCEHYDROGEOLCGICINVES77GATION AGUA DULCE, CA 973M Facility ID: 62 Remediatlon Status: SITEASSESWENT 'VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Version 2.7 Poge A'19 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED 1A) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE NPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 19 The agency release date -for National Priorities List was April, 2000. The NPL Report is the US EPA's registry of the nation's worst uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. NPL sites are.targeted for possible long-term remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. SPL VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 113 The agency release date for CalSites Database was July, 2000. This database is provided by the Cal. Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. The agency may be contacted at: 916-323-3400. CORRACTS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 14 The agency release date for RCRIS Corrective Action Sites was March, 2000. The CORRACTS database contains information concerning RCRA facilities that have conducted, or are currently conducting a corrective action. A Corrective Action Order is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may also be imposed as a requirement of receiving and maintaining a TSDF permit. RCRIS-TSDC VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 556 The agency release date for RCRIS TSDs Subject to Corrective Action was March, 2000. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program Identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDCs are treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities that are subject to corrective action under RCRA. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 vealon 2.7 Pogo #'20 B) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/2 MILE CERCLIS SRC#: 17 NFRAP SRC#: 18 SCL SRC#: 112 RCRIS-TSD SRC#: 12 SWLF SRC#: 23 VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. The agency release date for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Information Sys was April, 2000. The CERCLIS database is a comprehensive listing of known or suspected uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. These sites have either been investigated, or are currently under investigation by the U.S. EPA for the release, or threatened release of hazardous substances. Once a site is placed in CERCLIS, it may be subjected to several levels of review and evaluation, and ultimately placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. The agency release date for No Further Remedial Action Planned was April, 2000. The No Further Remedial Action Planned Report (NFRAP), also known as the CERCLIS Archive, contains Information pertaining to sites which have been removed from the U.S. EPA's CERCLIS database. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, either no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly , without need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. ; i VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. The agency release date for CalSites Database was July, 2000. This database is provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Two- thirds of these sites have been classified, based on available info(mation, as needing "No Further Action" (NFA) by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The remaining sites are In various stages of review and remediation to determine it a problem exists at the site. Several hundred sites have been remediated and are considered certified. Some of these sites may be In long term operation and maintenance. VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. The agency release date for RCRIS Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities was March, 2000. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program Identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities which treat store and/or dispose of hazardous waste. VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. The agency release date for USGS Solid Waste Landfills was December, 1991. This database is provided by the United States Geological Survey. The agency may be contacted at: 703-648-5613. s For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Veislon 2.7 1 Pare k21 , SWLF VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 163 The agency release date for Solid Waste Inventory System was March, 2000. This database is provided by the Integrated Waste Management Board. The agency may be contacted at: 916-255-4021. SWLF-CO VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 51 The agency release date for Los Angeles County Solid Waste Landfills Transfer Stations was February, 1998. This database is provided by the Public Health Invesitgations Hazardous Material Control Program. The agency may be contacted at: 323-881-4151. SWLF-CO VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 70 The agency release date for City of Los Angeles Landfills Transfer Stations was April, 1999. This database is provided by the City of Los Angeles, Environmental Affais Department. The agency may be contacted at: 213-580-1070. WMUDS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 68 The agency release date for Waste Management Unit Data System was February, 1999. This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. The agency may be contacted at: Z30-892-0323. This Is used for program tracking and Inventory of waste management units. This system contains information from: Facility, Waste Management Unit, SWAT Program and Report Summary Information, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15), TPCA and RCRA Program Information, Closure Information; also some information from the WDS (Waste Discharge System). SPILLS VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 107 The agency release date for Region 4 SLIC Site List was August, 1999. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #4.,The agency may be contacted at: 323-266-7576. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 164 The agency release date for Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System was July, 2000. This database is provided by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The agency may be contacted at: 916-445-6532. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Version �'.I Pogo #'22 LUST-REG VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 108 The agency release date for Region 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks was February, 2000. This database is provided by the Lohontan Region Six South Lake Tahoe. The agency may be contacted at: 530-542-5400. LUST-REG VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 121 The agency release date for Region 4 Leaking Underground Storage Tank was February, 2000. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #4. The agency may be contacted at: 323-266-7582. LUST-REG VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 128 The agency release date for Region 6 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks was February, 2000. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #6. The agency may be contacted at: 760-241-7365. CORTESE VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 53 The agency release date for Cortese List - Hazardous Waste Substance Site List was April, 1998. This database is provided by the Office of Environmental Protection, Office of Hazardous ' Materials. The agency may be contacted at: 916-445-6532. The California Governor's Office of Planning and Research annually publishes a listing of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites throughout the State of California under Government Code ' Section 65962.5. This database (CORTESE) is based on Input from the following: (1)CALSITES-Department of Toxic Substances Control, Abandoned Sites Program Information Systems; (2)SARA Title III Section III Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990; (3)FINDS, (4)HWIS-Department of Toxic Substances Control, ' Hazardous Waste Information System. Vista has not included one time generator facilities from Cortese in our database.; (5)SWRCB-State Water Resources Control Board; (6)SWIS-Integrated Waste Management Control Board (solid waste facilities); ' (7)AGT25-Air Resources Board, dischargers of greater than 25 tons of criteria pollutants to the air; (8)A1025-Air Resources Board, dischargers of greater than 10 and less than 25 tons of criteria pollutants to the air; (9)LTANK-SWRCB Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; (10)UTANK-SWRCB Underground tanks reported to the SWEEPS systems; ' (11)IUR-Inventory Update Rule (Chemical Manufacturers); (12)WB-LF- Waste Board - Leaking Facility, site has known migration; (13)WDSE-Waste Discharge System - Enforcement Action; (14)DTSCD-Department of Toxic Substance Control Docket. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Veislon 2.7 Page #23 BORDER-ZON VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your. property. SRC#: 46 The agency release date for Deed Restriction Properties Report was April, 1994. Ir The Deeds Restrictions list, also known as the Border Zone Property List, contains Information concerning voluntary deed restriction. These agreements are made with owners of property who propose building residences, schools, hospitals, or day care centers on property that Is on or within 2,000 feet of potentially hazardous waste site. TOXICPITS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 49 The agency release date for Toxic Pits was February, 1995. This database is provided by the Water Quality Control Board, Division of Loans Grants. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4396. . USGS-WELLS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /2 mile of your property. SRC#: 3 The agency release date for USGS Water Wells was March, 1998. The Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSi) database was provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The database contains information for over 1,000,000 wells and other sources of groundwater which the USGS has studied, used or documented during research. C) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 114 MILE RCRIS-VIOL VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 11 The agency release date for RCRIS Facilities with Violations was March, 2000. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program Identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRIS Other report contains information concerning facilities that are "unclassified" within the RCRIS database (not classified as a Large Quantity Generator, Transporter, etc.). UST VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 45 The agency release date for Underground Storage Tanks was January, 1994. This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Underground Storage Tanks. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4364. Be advised that some states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Vero/on Z7 - Pogo #24 UST -CO -LB VISTA conducts a database search to ldenEf r .r'ii sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 56 The agency release date for City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tanks was October, 1999. This database is provided by the City of Long Beach Fire Department. The agency may be contacted at: 562-570-2560. Be advised: Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. UST -ELSE VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 86 The agency release date for City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tanks was November, 1999. This database is provided by the City of El Segundo Fire Department. The agency may be contacted at: 310-607-2239. Be advised: Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. UST-TORR VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 101 The agency release date for City of Torrance Underground Storage Tanks was April, 2000. This database is provided by the City of Torrance Fire Prevention Division. The agency may be contacted at: 310-618-2973. Be advised: Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. UST -CO -LA VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 142 The agency release date for Los Angeles County UST Street Number Book was August, 2000. This database is provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs. The agency may be contacted at: 626-458-4125. Be advised: Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. AST VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 60 The agency release date for Aboveground Storage Tanks was December, 1999. This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4364. LACO-SITE= VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 111 The agency release date for Los Angeles County Site Mitigation Complaint Control Log was August, 1999. This database is provided by the Department of Health Services, LA County Public Health Investigations. The agency may be contacted at: 323-890-7806. For mpre information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 VelVon 2.7 1 Page #25 TRIS VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. SRC#: 2 The agency release date for Toxic Release Inventory System was January, 1998. All facilities that manufacture, process, or import toxic chemicals in quantities In excess of 25,000 pounds per year are required to register with the EPA under Section 313 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) of 1986. Data contained in the TRIS system covers approximately 20,000 sites and 75,000 chemical releases. D) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/8 MILE ERNS VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /8 mile of your property. SRC#: 8 The agency release date for Emergency Response Notification System was August, 1999. ERNS is a national computer database system that is used to store information on the sudden and/or accidental release of hazardous substances, including petroleum, into the environment. The ERNS reporting system contains preliminary information on specific releases, including the spill location, the substance released, and the responsible party. RCRA-LQG VISTA conducts a database search to Identify all sites within 1 /8 mile of your property. SRC#: 16 The agency release date for RCRIS Large Quantity Generators was March, 2000. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program Identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Large Generators are facilities which generate at least 1000 kg./month of non -acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely hazardous waste). RCRIS-SQG VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 /8 mile of your property. SRC#: 15 The agency release date for RCRIS Small Quantity Generators was March, 2000. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and ' tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small Quantity Generators are facilities which generate less than 1000 kg./month of non -acutely hazardous waste. End of Report��'` For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, IRc. at l - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 723401901 Date of Report: November 13, 2000 Ve/5%On 2.7 Pogo #26 APPENDIX B FOCUSED COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEY RESULTS Plum Canyon County Park Project Final Initial Study/ivlitigated Negative Declaration rrA:;wro:1401 N Eoaw INC July 23, 2001 1420 XETTNER 8OULEVARD Mr. Rick Farris SUITE 620 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Office SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, California 93003 92101 Subject: Results of Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Conducted at the Plum Canyon Park Site, Los Angeles County TEL 619 233 1454 • Dear Mr. Farris: FAX 619 233 "52 www.6daw.com This report is notification that focused presence/absence surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilacalrfoiz ca califoinica) have been conducted for the Plum Canyon County Park project site, Los Angeles County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project is not a participant in the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. These surveys were conducted by Erik LaCoste of EDAW, Inc. (formally KEA Environmental, Inc.) pursuant to the terms and conditions of permit numberTE-027736-1, issued under Section 10(a)1(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. The Plum Canyon County Park project includes the conversion of approximately 7 of 13 acres of undeveloped land into a passive and active year-round public park. Developed areas would consist of walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage. The primary objective of the project, as identified by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, is to develop a new park that would provide passive and active year-round recreation opportunities to serve the local residential community. Specifically, the project objective is to provide a local park with a service radius of up to one-half mile. Mitigation measures to off -set impacts associated with this project include focused surveys for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher to ensure that impacts to this species are avoided. The gnatcatcher survey area included all appropriate gnatcatcher habitat in the project impact area as well as all appropriate habitat within a 500-foot buffer around the impact area (Appendix A, Figure 2). A total of approximately 13.0 acres of appropriate habitat were included in the survey area. Surveys were conducted following the Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/absence Survey Protocol (USFWS 1997). Taped gnatcatcher vocalizations were occasionally played UNITED STATES throughout the surveys. According to the survey protocol, all areas not included in the NCCP program should be surveyed a minimum of 6 times when conducted EUROPE between March 15and June 30. Focused surveys were conducted between May 14 AUSrRALIA %giIA (MMON, PLANNING AND 2NVORONMQNTS WORLDWIDE Mr. Rick Farris U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 23, 2001 Page 2 and June 19, 2001. Survey conditions for each of the six surveys is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Gnatcatcher Survey Conditions Date Time Weather Conditions Biologist Survey Rate May 14, 2001 0845 -1050 Start: Sunny and clear, 61 OF, E. LaCoste 6.25 winds of 1-3 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 74 OF, winds of 1-3 mph May 21, 2001 1005 -1150 Start: Sunny and clear, 74 OF, E. LaCoste 7.43 winds of 1-3 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 86 OF, winds of 2-4 mph May 29, 2001 0900 -1100 Start: Sunny and clear, 68 OF, E. LaCoste 6.5 winds of 1-3 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 76 OF, winds of 1-3 mph June 5, 2001 0930 -1115 Start: Sunny and clear, 72 OF, E. LaCoste 7.43 winds of 0-1 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 75 OF, winds of 1-3 mph June 12, 2001 0900 -1045 Start: Sunny and clear, 65'F, E. LaCoste 7.43 winds of 0-1 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 70 OF, winds of 2-4 mph June 19, 2001 0940 -1115 Start: Sunny and clear, 78 OF, E. LaCoste 8.23 winds of 0-1 mph acre/hour End: Sunny and clear, 93 OF, winds of 1-3 mph RESULTS The survey site is roughly rectangular in shape. Urban development occurs on three sides of the project area while a paved road (Plum Canyon Road) occurs on the ICSIW1, PLANNW,.:' ' V) eNVIROMMeNTS VIOnLOWIOe Mr. Rick Farris ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service July 23, 2001 Page 3 ' fourth. The area in general is very active with human activity, particularly development. Approximately half of the site has been disturbed in the past by ' grading and terracing, possibly during initial housing development in the immediate area. Vegetation in this disturbed area is consistent with disturbed coastal sage scrub habitat; vegetation consists of an almost monotypic stand of deerweed (Lotusscoparius) with few forb (non -grass herbaceous cover) species. A drainage occurs in the northeast corner of the site. This drainage has few plant species'and, along with the terraced area, appears to be used frequently as an off - road recreational area by local kids. Coastal sage scrub habitat, a vegetation type preferred by the coastal California ' gnatcatcher, does cover the eastern half of the site adjacent to both the disturbed area and the drainage. Dominant plant species include purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), California sage (Artemisia califomica), and California buckwheat ' (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Most of the coastal sage scrub occurs outside the project boundary yet within the 500-foot buffer area. ' No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed or detected during any of the focused surveys. The absence of the gnatcatcher may be attributed to the isolated nature of the project site and the high level of urban development. In addition, the t California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) does not contain any records for the gnatcatcher in this area. Wildlife species observed during the surveys is included in Appendix B and field forms are included in Appendix C. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter report, please feel free to contact me at (619) 233-1454. Sincerely, Gs. Erik LaCoste Wildlife Biologist Appendices: Survey Maps Wildlife Species Observed Field Notes Itr--ays Plum Canyon G1 cNReporl. ivpd OES14K %, ""'"'".. \NO PNV?S0N%&2NT3 1.V0k1LX/10C APPENDDC A SURVEY MAPS 1 � r�,t' I I � 1' i r�� _I �• � �! N N 1/r \ � \�1`. ,' II " 1 _ - _C..Jf - •`� Ili V / dA` l f V € a t' -\�i .i 1 .�_Gr' �5 �s `ly v • i� \ J - /° y 1 `ti. i 1.. ._ ` `� `„ \�'\ 11 �I .,� �1 �.� a l ' 1. ,.i. �� ` C1�1 1 �- - •l f �.t��� v Sig\J{�1/' S r lr - \•- S % r� �j Z pfr �fl 1. /fll'��.. T/ :pl�ij�,���1 ��� I/1 ';�`!� �^b� �r �; •.� / f 71 Ill PROJECT LOCATION �i7s " tw v SURVEY AREA`( ) �� /ram �,.. �` r -, .. ✓ ✓ � / ��� ��� r� d/ ��`-''/;� 1 1}� ,\ j .\ r,r., r: " ��� \ t'• .-� / / ( •!'`•� --' �� � 'Ike -� � ����J~ l V i� ? -' r' ��� `'• z r /� 1 -/\•-✓t( S ,• IP y t<r �Gn. , Lr%:r�\\•`-.%) r•✓ w 77' ;_� l.. I r as: - A . 'fir ✓� �.. �I�..,� -r 1II3�, ry ^ i-;"-,.. �; �.��'��i -� 'ram �_ �' • �7—ICI MM ps Source: Los Angeles 7.5' Quad (1966), Mirror Rev 1994 0 2000 Feet % Plum Canyon County Park ojn,m pi ,CArea 11/30/00 Figure 1 Project Location/Survey Area A!ul.,:;:�*;,"P: A* X S > AREA SURVEYED FOR COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER- INCLUDES 500-FOOT BUFFER APPROPRIATE HABITAT FOR COASTAL CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER- WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA PROJECT AREA Figure 2 Gnatcatcher Survey Area Plum Canyon County Park 01008 Plm,. C,mvunLP7gnrrsVig lGmuarchr,S,,,,eVAea 74W/ APPENDA B WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED DURING SURVEYS Appendix B Wildlife Species Observed at the Plum Canyon Park Project Site Common Name Birds Mourning dove Northern mockingbird Cliff swallow California quail California towhee ]:louse finch Bushtit Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow Bell's Sage sparrow Costa's hummingbird Western kingbird Lesser goldfinch Bewick's wren Greater roadrunner Red-tailed hawk Common yellowthroat Scrub jay Say's phoebe European starling Black -headed grosbeak Oriole species Mammals Audubon's cottontail Ground squirrel Reptile Sideblotch lizard Insects Acmon blue Common hairstreak Behr's metalmark Cabbage white Painted lady Anise swallowtail Striated queen Unknown sulfur Unknown folded -wing skipper Unknown hairstreak Scientific Name Zenaida macroura Mimus polyglottos Hihmdo pyrrhonota Callipepla californica Pipilo crissalis Carpodacus mexicanus Psaltriparus minimus Aim opAga ruficeps mnescens Amphispiza belle bells Calypte costa Tyrannus verticalis Cardue& psaltria Thryomanes bewickii Geococcyx californianus Buteo jamaicensis Geothlypis trichas Aphelocoma coerulescens Sayornis saga Sturnus vulgarls Pheucticus melanocephalus Ictems sp. Sylvilagus audubonu Spermophilus beecheyi Ufa stansburiana Plebejus acmon acmon Strymon melfnus pudica Apodemia mormo virgulti Pleris rapae Vanessa cardui Papilio zelicaon zelicaon Danaus gilippus Unknown sulfur Unknown skipper Unknown hairstreak APPENDDC C SURVEY NOTES MELD JOURNAL Job Name caw•. Job Observer s Add'I Persons Date 5 f o 1 Start Time aq5 End Time 425`b Location i o.,.. Habitat Description Purpose of Visit 1 5-.ru_!-"j Start Weather: Temp C21 ° Wind Sp/Dir From I 3 %Clds A& D Current Weather: TempWind Sp/Dir From 3 %Clds 'O' Pep Pabe 1 of FOLD JOURNAL Job Name - —1V-jd WL A) 0 Job # 00 8 Observer�21 Add'1 Persons_ Date » Q 1 Start Time o o End Time Habitat Description c� s Purpose of Visit oZ (oiLt.1.�'Gcyf"G{� C 2 SU✓'V �`t Start Weather: Temp � ° Wind Sp/Dir From L= W I %Clds_--G--Pcp .tG' r____:,.. �.............a:.,., Y.'I"d Y1ces and Discuss Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat Linkaees. �. .� .Notes w Ad ME KWTWK M. r FM OEM MEN r My"Erm, PIMP -= MENME MMMIM ME OMMINEMMIM —_ —_ INEMMIM ME NEW -Gurreff Weather: Temp�Wind Sp/Dir From t�''T %Clds_�Pcp_ _ C��ID Page 1 of I Job Habitat Descri Purpose of Vi., Start Weather. Describe Surr I ^t-- XT- I IELD JOURNAL ; � S nn �,j 0 Job # IcAdd'l Persons ""711�-)"" Start Time QW0 End Time_ (I O O Temp _ C4,v Wind Sp/Dir From 1-- %Clds l Pcp ►unding Land Uses and Discuss Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat ,r:- mm.0 it/ c G .1.'� S�:` r �r`.�. f _p ,i 0 E Y.: J ✓Y1 C� .=c �',+n ri �;=. a :� r./ �/r� S'�?c�% {7i?.;t. �i �� <.; ,�. r1 '�77 �-' c' •P.-c, �ti 7 �O r -r-GY) 7 11;-e, swc,-&-tf _ • G// raw/lo„�.� �fG�r2o� � �z.. 14r- "Zw c'2. _._ 4I W,-e, .�4 Preuvole, f c,-/Jn kA r Alt, NA r O VVIOoa C tvovi� w+ . G A ti let/ va.c ! � rl<%f(er �t e�.. �IJLA /:,� i! t t:`J i 1 G= (,,•r.!C, �' .�^ w �Q�P (G C � r �.J^f" / i'�' r.�"1� �,.r'�,` • at ri!11 dlLG ,(.f_f, _-sD��tr� Current Weather: Temp � ,� Y Wind SpMir From i ' %Clds Pcp 'J Page I of m = = = = m /h (yI RA CD __ nn YL awc S�•wc t�•..�4 L�Gc.✓OC. (f IN��K c�� �s►r-� , (,c.�k�P}�.11 W� �l.A�u15%. 6�{ • CW�t�n(Lvn � / c1 CLt�G �•2 Ir a Gc.d�- D�-G� czt�C.t► w ur gs� 01- Gofbr lc L� tkt i.ovo- livc Work 1bra".e. G r- D1 Ll 4 rf emu. l j 1'?vn� i�ft� �✓'a� -- o� d PIS, n�-� cy1,VLtS�''�J'-f WAvts, Bur(6% SaGS Q DIY . ..CDs h v✓U►wtGr� mlJji G up "W w�ei't -i w►S wovL e9- �$ c II ��."w P ScKcs Co Scb� (ate - -t/ycev,Ga/1 e/ ire �owdl.�v�_ d SMn. G Y�M�7�'tpc f GLC 90 7i n+ rid /h -5-W P4A r .gp 6n s -W,7 e4. D �v✓ atr{— 6100 S 0 _ g-uz - _ • q 3� C co,- .w:.%J--, $ � CI ��ill&76Rr mot. 6,0 do 0 J'P vf; -r 7c fl / (� �d�7'ec ,� sk-y Free- Y' SioeB�o ��. (�2) H A-f _. I omo /Sc'ecs. Vfv &At �p . SrrrcJeo 7-- 101 q40 s (A)re> O — 1 /Uo Gh oJo •r_ %,//���� . L;�� - /fit /S EDAw INC , 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE SUITE 3920A ' LOS ANGLES CALIFORNIA 90071 TEL 213 229 0150 FAX 213 229 0155 W W W.Oda W.,C'0M MEMORANDUM TO Lillie Lowery, Departmental Facilities Planner I FROM Madonna Marcelo DATE November 2, 2001 Cc SUBJECT USFWS Concurrence with the Results of the Gnatcatcher Surveys EDAW contacted Mr. Rick Farris of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on October 24, 2001, to confirm the adequacy of the report we submitted to the USFWS in July presenting the results of the coastal California gnatcatcher surveys we conducted for the Plum Canyon County Park project site. Mr. Farris verbally confirmed that our report was satisfactory to the USFWS. Subsequently, on November 1, 2001, Mr. Farris stated in an e-mail that "the coastal California gnatcatcher survey report sent to us in July appears to be adequate. Because none were sighted, no further coordination with us is required at this time. However, if the species appears during the project, activities must cease until we are contacted and the appropriate coordination is completed; possibly including application for an incidental take permit." DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for David March Park (previously referred to as the "Plum Canyon County Park Project") Prepared for City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contact: Julia Regan Prepared by Psomas 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92707 June 2024 Table of Contents Section Paqe Section1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Basis for the Addendum....................................................1-1 Section2.0 Background......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Summary of the Adopted Plum Canyon County Park Project IS/MND... 2-1 2.2 Mitigation Measures of the Adopted Final IS/MND.................................2-1 Section 3.0 Modified Project Description and Setting......................................................3-1 3.1 Project Location......................................................................................3-1 3.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics....................................................3-1 3.3 Project Description..................................................................................3-1 3.3.1 Circulation and Parking...............................................................3-1 3.3.2 Future Operations.......................................................................3-1 3.3. 3 Project Construction.................................................................... 3-1 3.3.4 Discretionary Approvals..............................................................3-2 Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis...................................................................................4-1 4.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND............................................4-1 4.1.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis................................................4-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................4-4 4.2.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND............................................4-4 4.2.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ................................................4-5 4.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................4-7 4.3.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND............................................4-7 4.3.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ................................................4-8 4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................4-11 4.4.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-11 4.4. 2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-12 4.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................4-18 4.5.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-18 4.5. 2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-19 4.6 Energy..................................................................................................4-21 4.6.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-21 4.6.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-22 4.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................4-24 4.7.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-24 4.7.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-25 DAVID MARCH PARK ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table of Contents 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................4-28 4.8.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-28 4.8.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-29 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................4-31 4.9.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-31 4.9.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-32 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................4-35 4.10.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-35 4.10.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-36 4.11 Land Use and Planning........................................................................4-39 4.11.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-39 4.11.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-39 4.12 Mineral Resources................................................................................4-40 4.12.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-40 4.12.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-41 4.13 Noise....................................................................................................4-42 4.13.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-42 4.13.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-43 4.14 Population and Housing........................................................................4-45 4.14.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-45 4.14.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-45 4.15 Public Services.....................................................................................4-46 4.15.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-46 4.15.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-47 4.16 Recreation............................................................................................4-48 4.16.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-48 4.16.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-48 4.17 Transportation.......................................................................................4-50 4.17.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-50 4.17.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-51 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.....................................................................4-52 4.18.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-52 4.18.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-53 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................4-54 4.19.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND..........................................4-54 4.19.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ..............................................4-55 4.20 Wildfire..................................................................................................4-57 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND......................................................4-57 4.20.1 Modified ProjectlmpactAnalysis..............................................4-58 DAVID MARCH PARK II ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table of Contents Section 5.0 Conclusions......................................................................................................5-1 Section 6.0 References........................................................................................................6-1 TABLES Table Paqe 1 Cultural Resource Studies Within '/2-Mile of the Project Site.......................................4-20 2 Cultural Resources Within '/2-Mile of the Project Site..................................................4-20 3 Energy Consumption for a Typical Day........................................................................4-23 EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page 1 Site Plan.........................................................................................................................3-1 2 Site Lighting Plan...........................................................................................................3-1 3 Area Lighting Photometric Plan......................................................................................4-3 APPENDICES Appendix A Biological Resources Memorandum B Cultural Resources Memorandum DAVID MARCH PARK III ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND BASIS FOR THE ADDENDUM In 2002, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County (County) adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Plum Canyon County Park, which evaluated the environmental impacts associated with a project to develop an existing open space area as a park. The project that was approved in 2002 (the Approved Project) involves development of two pads; the northern pad has been approved for the development of walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage. The southern pad has been approved for the development of utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), multipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, and a 15-space parking lot. This document is an Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has been prepared due to changes proposed in the Approved Project design that have been made since 2002 when the Approved Project was approved by the County. The Project as currently proposed (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Project") involves the addition of six stadium lights, associated with the previously approved sports field, and a set of exercise stairs. These new project features were not originally planned in 2002 and they were therefore not evaluated for potential environmental impacts. CEQA allows for the preparation of an Addendum to an adopted IS/MND (Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) to document minor changes in the project characteristics or environmental conditions under which the project will be developed. This Addendum to the adopted 2002 IS/MND for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (PRC, Sections 21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Santa Clarita. Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred". Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the following conditions are met: A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant DAVID MARCH PARK 1-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, based on the analysis and substantial evidence presented in this Addendum, the City has determined there are no new significant environmental impacts resulting from the Modified Project. The City has determined that there are no substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified significant environmental impacts and no new mitigation measures are required for the implementation of the Modified Project; there are no changes in circumstances under which the Modified Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and there is no new information of substantial importance that would result in one or more new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Modified Project and requested approvals. At the time the IS/MND was prepared, Plum Canyon County Park was located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In 2012, the City of Santa Clarita (City) annexed North Copperhill/Saugus, containing the Project site. Pursuant to Section 15050 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency for this Addendum and has the authority for Project approval and approval of the accompanying environmental documentation (i.e., this Addendum). DAVID MARCH PARK 1-2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 2.0 BACKGROUND While Los Angeles County was the Lead Agency responsible for the Plum Canyon County Park Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the Lead Agency responsible for the subject Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Plum Canyon County Park Project is the City of Santa Clarita (City). The Modified Project would be implemented on the same site as the Approved Project, which is located at 28310 Via Joyce Drive. The following section provides a summary of the adopted Plum Canyon County Park Project IS/MND that is integral to the Modified Project. 2.1 SUMMARY OF THE ADOPTED PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK PROJECT IS/MND The 2002 Plum Canyon County Project proposed the conversion of approximately 7 of the 13 acres of undeveloped land into a passive and active year-round public park; the remaining six acres would remain undeveloped. Project development would occur over two relatively flat pads; as proposed, the Project would involve the development of walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage in the northern pad, and utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), multipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, and a 15-space parking lot in the southern pad. 2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE ADOPTED FINAL IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND included the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level for all environmental topics: Biological Resources M-IV.I The County shall mitigate impacts to the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off - site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve. M-IV.2 If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300-foot buffer from the limits of grading no more than 15 days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed. During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of construction. If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed I on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Cultural Resources M-V.I If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist. DAVID MARCH PARK 2-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction Noise M-XI.I Project construction shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Noise Code. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays Fridays; prior written approval shall be obtained to conduct construction activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays. I M-X1.2 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. M-X1.3 Temporary noise mufflers and noise attenuating devices, particularly along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to the single-family residences, shall be employed to reduce noise generated during construction. Utilities and Service Systems M-XVI.I Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and the development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and implemented whenever possible. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the incorporation of this requirement. M-XV1.2 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the incorporation of this requirement. DAVID MARCH PARK 2-2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 3.0 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Modified Project site is located within David March Park, at 28310 Via Joyce Drive in the City of Santa Clarita (City), California. The Northern portion of the Project site is currently developed with an existing parking lot, picnic tables, open space, play structures, canopy structures, and restrooms. The southern portion of the Project site currently consists of open space and dirt trails. The Project site can be accessed from Plum Canyon Road and Via Joyce Drive. 3.2 EXISTING SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS David March Park is a local neighborhood park serving the Plum Canyon community. The existing park provides recreational space to the community through a large, shaded playground, open grass area, and a fitness zone (City of Santa Clarita 2023b). As discussed above, the Northern portion of the Modified Project site is developed with an existing parking lot, picnic tables, open space, play structures, canopy structures, and restrooms. The southern portion of the Modified Project site is currently open space and dirt trails. Land uses in the area include residential and institutional land uses (City of Santa Clarita 2011a). The Modified Project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and a zoning designation of Open Space (OS) (City of Santa Clarita 2011a; City of Santa Clarita 2023c). 3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Modified Project consists of the installation of new outdoor lighting, comprised of six individual light fixtures. The Modified Project also includes new exercise stairs. These improvements are shown in Exhibit 1, Site Plan. The new stadium lights would consist of three 70-foot-tall tower LED flood lights and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the baseball field, a 50-foot flood light twin pole mounted light fixture associated with the basketball court, and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the parking lot and walkway. The new proposed lights are depicted on Exhibit 2, Site Lighting Plan. 3.3.1 CIRCULATION AND PARKING On -site circulation for the Modified Project would not change from what was previously for the Approved Project. Park patrons would access the Project site by Via Joyce Drive and either Adriene Way or Jerry Place. These roads currently provide access to the existing park. 3.3.2 FUTURE OPERATIONS Operation for the Park would continue to be managed by the City of Santa Clarita. The Project would not result in any major new operational features or needs from the Approved Project. Operations of the Modified Project would be consistent with those described in the Approved Project. Operations would consist of recreational use of David March Park; as described in the Approved IS/MND, many park patrons would be from neighboring areas and would walk or bike to the park. 3.3.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Modified Project would not exceed the equipment quantities or overall construction duration of that analyzed for the Approved Project. The 2002 IS/MND assumes that DAVID MARCH PARK 3-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATinN i 1 s _-- 26 -- — I26 / r Ly GENERAL NOTES: CONSTRIIEET UCTION NOTES LEcemo say.curF�o aow E.asnrvs cFPeE Fv F. /roc mm cn ry cur Fm�a//o xF�ans snEEr c,.,. O —E—IL couar. —1 ro va ucsuaE F� rve Da u/sru. cF. ss, aEFEF ro unoecnFE —s Os_ aal EurulraieFa 1111-11 o11m11—s—rua ao/ �Jano., o�snc�rc z,o. n-11 srnii 11111— se. see oereI LI OIII FILL muucarrn oouE 11—sc -III zFE1e1,1 0 srEFuawruFE.—F IN Nosc:FE — O wnEss. FER, aEFEF IF —I—PE Furvs 0 wavFu rUFrS, Fruit ro ia/o9Cnr�Fw R//s 11 wrsmUcr6 WFe FFa Sro�ncsro rzu 2rvFEar SSCF SwFErc fiJo 0 mFF we_i. Fcrta ro c. /asuFEa. its Owcn�i.wnwray. FcrFF roaan�nEcr Funs OmRsn eaciosuF FFrtrsroaFcr11rEcr 11 � C crroounraecE rureea�o surrr-,eawswv.csLE O5 c una,.nura nrue uu�ien ven SYvi.csiu ivF[.�rrenea se iO/ CCNSmuCioRllEIr. YE�mY PEF Swrvc,i¢2 sEE9FEEiC �d¢ttPEC irv9rui wree cur oPerv��¢ a tom ecw ec n iO9 CorvsinuC�wnen rvYr2n SrntCir,a.�mvererun O BPSEBR.. FlELD FErvCE. FEFER io unLu'cPPE Pu1Js O$rTLLPaFI(I1T1 ow.m FFFswwcrsr a SCFSFFEra GJo ® ocr�icaon sn[crccro s�llswFxuls sruiss�snasFauosmiw/./s F[a ® it srxcFCC F. Rcnrw�r, sc,=oEra�c2 CN s�FFrc Gza Oa srcry er.srvwm �ierrirrre rra, seeoerai,00�sneer O 111-1161, 11111111—P— m.E-111 sFEErcaz¢ oRr� osmu�aPare nF�rnu eaarvaa��raJe�ane oFe o Erl o�z9 r��E ¢/r,nm z sE orvsFE oa ssa a�xam�,ae :; FUEILL sraLLare 1 oamPrvo r n� rex,, re�e a� os r x� :a oA —NI o l�rFOFF�ruFEE�� 0 o = NINF N Er F .�.�-111 � s 1..,m�Y ,F —1S IT¢LLA— IEA.111IL A , OE1,111-11S ¢Fare/ STILL r¢rer¢roreeuaEse Os, s Err.za,sn rcAzo reoa w,mre ur„e�.rPFcn¢ry 0N-LEFIL,-111-1-11 aren¢n,¢J�re¢rvn¢re�ree� rvoa�,F=Fus MH=50' NOTE: 1. PROVIDE OF UNDERGROUND PULL FOR FUTURE ART LIGHTING. r - ----- r s� MH o' X �� r m.i A E 'C- 2#4 + DID f a E k� 6 �„ •1rI II IIIIII �� �I i 1`- & MH l r MM,Z NW 1 ! 1 1oa � d d✓ a. � J l 1 PPe PTia t�°�aY r :� O' — _ �+Py14�:. 1 ! 'a a ��P15a., 1r Try', ��� / t - B;jza 1 a s / yaw f/ f MH=16' ! 9 MIT 30' a f ONT # +z#a +1A19 GND D eC1.0FOs E +z,O,z axi_ — V + d B- 3. 35 r �r 1 6 + I' 1..C-2#10 + #12 GND _ I ` FG,{I-� ` T i 1 11 ab �f wt 1 a e II^-F�+ -1,3 2.4 +6 f ri� ®a., "c-z 10 + s +2#a +1 GNP e EXISTING POLE LIGHTS (PROTECT IN PLACE) f_ (f !)(she noTeI) v \ f Tc-2# +1# o G o ��� 40 /Ire �� , 4 /, ➢i� , + + ) by AE 10 1. 1. 10a MH-16' r . e fI 3 1 r 3q p1q VI a 1 s , {{ A s I r / 4 } EXISTING PO y A 1 1.7 696 1 L 70 (PROTECT IN PLACE , fi R 5T 89 10, 12 / tf r E T v\ 1 /a'C-2He +aga 1 0 GIRD KEYNOTES: e 104 r i N MH=50' } ¢ y\ 1O B 1'c 2 H2 T 1 H2 GIRD - "`�`L O2B _ 13, 15 + 14,16 s l� � 1 3 'C-2 #2 + 2 #6 + 1 j/2 GND � 3 SITE LIGHTING PLAN r1� 30' � 1 a�If X> - X � XX / 907 CD SUBMITTAL NOTES: - nEn, en _ _ C/TY OF SANTA CLAFIITA '"' as swalN M!e 01/TOTJ 1, REFER TO SHEET E-0.02 THOU E-0.04 FOR OA✓/O MARCH PARK 16 272" PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLANS AND CALCULATIONS. _ GS£NR 2, REFER TO E-3.01 FOR LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE 3, PROVIDE UNDERGROUND PULL FOR EACH EV. SITE FOR UNDERGROUND CONNECTION. And Ver a Ass 'oleos LIGHTING PLAN E-1.00 1 A XXXXXA]]i'XAM'A' XX XXX.CYX 2 -10-27 11:47 AN C:\—rWI—N9 E-tAO-SIZE LIGHIMG PLAN.— Project Description and Setting Project construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six-month timeframe. 3.3.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS Pursuant to CEQA, the City has primary discretionary authority over the approval of the Modified Project. The anticipated discretionary approvals required for the City to implement the Project includes the following: • Find that the Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park IS/MND complies with CEQA pursuant to Title 14 CCR Article 11, Sections 15162 and 15164 for changes to the Original Project. • Adoption of the Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park IS/MND; • Adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and • Design, construction, and operation of the project. Other public agencies may also have discretionary authority over the Project, or aspects of the Project, and are considered responsible agencies. The IS/MND can be used by the responsible agencies to comply with CEQA in connection with permitting or approval authority over the Project. DAVID MARCH PARK 3-2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This document is an addendum to the previously approved CEQA document outlined in Section 2.0, Project Background. By definition, an addendum to a CEQA document is intended to demonstrate that the modifications to the previously Approved Project would not substantially increase environmental impacts or create any new significant impacts. The following analysis is documentation of why and how this conclusion has been made. For each topical issue, summaries of the environmental analysis conclusions, and any applicable mitigation measures, from the 2002 IS/MND are provided. Following the summary of the 2002 IS/MND, the analysis for the Modified Project is presented. 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND stated that there are no officially designated scenic vistas or highways in the immediate vicinity of the Approved Project site. Additionally, the previous environmental analysis determined that the Approved Project site is not within the viewshed of an officially designate State scenic highway; the nearest officially designated State scenic highway was Angeles Crest Highway, located approximately 20 miles southeast of the Approved Project site. Additionally, the previous analysis determined that public parks are aesthetically consistent with single-family residential communities, such as the neighborhood around the Approved Project site. Therefore the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas. Regarding new sources of light or glare, the Approved Project included security lighting along the pathways, at the restroom, and in the parking lot and did not propose other nighttime lighting. Therefore, it was determined that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required for this resource topic. 4.1.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ Q adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existina Views and Visual Character The northern portion of the Project site is currently developed with an existing public park and associated parking lot, while the southern portion of the Project site consists of vacant parcel and dirt paths. The existing on -site public park is David March Park; park infrastructure includes playsets, permanent canopy structures, benches, picnic tables, exercise equipment, and public restrooms. The associated surface parking lot is located along the northwestern border of the Project site. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Scenic vistas and other important visual resources are typically associated with natural landforms such as mountains, foothills, ridgelines, coastlines, and open space areas. Open space resources within the City of Santa Clarita include a number of scenic canyons, woodlands, water bodies, geological features, and significant ridgelines (City of Santa Clarita 2011 b). There are ridgelines within the Project site that may be considered significant, and therefore scenic pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. These ridgelines are visible from public roads adjacent to the Project site. The newly proposed lighting would partially impair views of ridgelines within the eastern portion of the Project site. However, these views would generally be maintained since the lighting would have large gaps that viewers would be able to see beyond. Furthermore, views of these ridgelines are already obscured from many viewpoints by existing streetlights and landscaping, which already detract from these ridgeline views. Construction within the Project site may temporarily alter views of significant ridgelines to vehicles traveling along Via Joyce Drive; however, consistent with the Approved IS/MND, these would be short-term changes and would not represent a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vistas. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND identified that there are no officially designated scenic highways within the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is Angeles Crest Highway, located approximately 20 miles southeast of the Project site (Caltrans 2023a). Given that the Project site is not visible from Angeles Crest Highway due to distance and intervening topography, the Modified Project would have no impacts related to this threshold. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located within an urbanized area. As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project continues to propose recreational land uses, which are consistent with the OS zoning designation of the Project site. Implementation of the Modified Project would result in a change to the existing visual character of the Project site as described in more detail below, similar to what was anticipated for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND. During construction, construction equipment would be visible at the Project site. This visual change would be temporary in nature and typical of construction sites in an urban environment. During Project operations, the Modified Project would add sports field lighting and exercise stairs to an existing park that is being expanded. Therefore, these additional features would be consistent with existing and proposed uses within the Project site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located in an area that is already subject to ambient lighting from existing and surrounding uses. Existing sources of light near the Project site include streetlights, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from nearby residential land uses. The Modified Project would include new exterior light sources that were not included in the Approved Project, which would generate light at levels sufficient for safety and visibility and for evening use of the sporting fields. Photometric analyses have been conducted for the Modified Project, which have confirmed that outdoor lighting levels would not substantially increase for off -site areas as shown in Exhibit 3, Area Lighting Photometric Plan (Anil Verma Associates, Inc, 2023). Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 17.51.050 "Outdoor Lighting Standards", which requires the following of sport field lighting: 17.51.050.11. Lighting for public facilities including, but not limited to, sports fields/playfields, community centers and other facilities for public assembly, that are owned and operated by the City of Santa Clarita and that exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be subject to an administrative permit (refer to Section 17.23.100 (Administrative Permit)) and be subject to lighting standards provided for in subsection (D) of this section with a further requirement for a photometric study and renderings of the project (City of Santa Clarita, 2023a). DAVID MARCH PARK 4-3 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION POLE LIGHT — 14' HT., TYP, OF 8 (P12—P19,) I/ EXISTING POLE JOHTS�- (PROTECT IN PLACE( a , -0.03 POLE LIGHT 14 HT - . � �� POLE LIGHT - TO HT. HT. TYP. OF 2 � (P3. P2(C (TVP. OF 4) CANOPV TO BE rA SEPARATELY LIT / IS / 3 Pt Oo Cl Ta Os 1 �ExITINO uGHD` I OG 42 T8 03 08 3 �'( POLES NOT A PART OF CALCULATION 3 9 36 4 35 32 9 ' No CHANGE To EXISTING AREA :.$gppIQA 9 36 3 35 3 33 CO 26 P, 23 _ -� 32P75, , 2 32 32 Cl , 0 28 -€ 27 26 z ee 1 S ,B 1` 5 35 3 33 31 3 30 2 2 25 27 2 30 p iill a OT 0 01 0 Oo Cl ?9 8 g8 ET / 42 ,0 06 00 CO 1= 1= 00 J2 PT 2 T'Lrm ' 44 44 43 0 37 4 32 32 1 0 32 /32 E9- 40 6 3 33 3 38 4 / l 30 28 I. I 5. o—telr s3 se, s ae 4 a3 4 3e 3 3e 33 3e 34 g9 y3 52 5� 53 8 44 4 40 3 5 3 3 39 38 31I ��s ,T 9 as ao 06 Oa 4 ,T � 37 Cl � r ,0 5 54 s1 So 4 s POLE LIGHT - 20HT, TYP. OF 8 P4-11 i 2 GY - E DR�A3 i — EXISTING POLE LIGHTS Q 8 �S (PROTECT IN PLACE) z 0 05 0,5 0 01 0 0 0 Q 04 01� .0._ 0 0, AREA LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC�� 1 /40' = 1.-0" — O NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET E-0.04 FOR PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING LEGEND AND PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS. 2. REFER TO E-1.00 FOR SITE LIGHTING PLAN 3, REFER TO E-3.01 FOR LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE 4, PROVIDE UNDERGROUND PULL FOR EACH EV. FOR UNDERGROUND CONNECTION. 2 - 27 10:W AM c:\o..o.mIN- E-0— LI— PHmaunxi — I , PE' P2S 251 //i/ LIGHT 20 HT o OF 6) //l�j x zipAl 0 1=4� Z0 SCALE, 40' 0 40' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA am ro/aizs OA✓M® MARCH PARK roe xa rttvz�aoas GIS£ NR AREA LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN E-0.02 Environmental Checklist Consistent with the above policy, the Project shall obtain an administrative permit for installation of the proposed lighting fixtures; additionally, the Project's lighting would be consistent with all developments standards within Municipal Code 17.51.050. Since the Project site and surrounding areas are largely developed, the lighting associated with the Modified Project would not substantially increase light and glare within the site or surroundings. With compliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code 17.51.050 potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, regarding glare, the proposed lighting fixtures and exercise stairs would be constructed with non -reflective materials to minimize glare. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The aesthetics impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the aesthetics analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND identified no impacts associated with the topic of Agricultural Resources because the Project site contains no designated farmland by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, no land designated Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of implementation of the Approved Project; and no sites would be affected by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, as detailed in 2002 IS/MND, the Approved Project would result in no impacts pertaining to agriculture resources. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-4 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.2.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Environmental Issues New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there would be no impacts related to conversion of Farmland with implementation of the Approved Project. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, there are no designated farmlands within or near the Project site (DOC 2023a). No farmland conversion or impacts to agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the Modified Project. ` Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there would be no impact related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract with implementation of the Approved Project. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, there are no agricultural activities within or near the Project site. Also, the Project area is not zoned for agricultural use, and there are no Williamson Act Contracts. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the Modified Project. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-5 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production was not a CEQA Appendix G threshold question. Nonetheless, there are no forest land occurs on the Project site or within the nearby vicinity. Therefore, no rezoning of forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production is proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use was not a CEQA Appendix G threshold question. Nonetheless, no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use is proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, no conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use is proposed as part of the Project. Additionally, there would be no conversion of forest land to a non -forest use with the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The agriculture and forestry resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For DAVID MARCH PARK 4-6 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist these reasons, no substantial changes to the agriculture and forestry resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. As discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved Project would result in new emissions generated by construction activities. The 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for operation and construction. Motor vehicles, and traffic -congested roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or State standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." Based on the Approved Project's anticipated traffic, the 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. This impact was found to be less than significant. The 2002 IS/MND determined that when evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, due to the low number of trips associated with the Approved Project and the temporary nature of construction implementation of the Approved Project would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact was found to be less than significant. The 2002 IS/MND concluded that no activities would occur and no materials or chemicals would be stored on -site that would have the potential to cause odor impacts during the construction and use of the proposed park facility. Therefore, adverse odor impacts would not occur and no mitigation measures were required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required DAVID MARCH PARK 4-7 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Environmental Issues New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis AIR QUALITY— Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air pollutant emissions associated with the Approved and Modified Projects would occur over the short term from construction activities and over the long term from operation of the park. CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Modified Project includes the SCAQMD's AQMP, as discussed above. A project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: 1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both criteria are evaluated for the Project, as shown below. With respect to determining the Modified Project's consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG's RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. No housing is proposed as part of the Modified Project and therefore no long-term population growth would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not interfere with SCAQMD's goals for improving air quality in the region because the Modified Project would not consist of growth beyond what SCAQMD already projected for the City. Consequently, the Project would not conflict with the 2022 AQMP and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-8 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Furthermore, construction and operation of the Modified Project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD's thresholds for criteria pollutants. Construction of the Modified Project would not consist of construction equipment or durations beyond what was analyzed in the IS/MND for the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD's significant thresholds nor would the Modified Project result in a violation of air quality standards. Due to these factors, it can be concluded that the Modified Project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. As such, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with clean air consistency beyond those identified in the 2002 IS/MND. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis describes the Modified Project's construction- and operation -related air quality impacts. As discussed in more detail below, the Modified Project would result in less than significant construction and operational air quality impacts. Construction Construction of the Modified Project would not exceed the equipment quantities or overall construction duration of that analyzed for the Approved Project. The 2002 IS/MND assumes that Project construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six-month timeframe. The modified Project's emissions associated with this equipment are low and would not substantively change from the previous assessment. As such, construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM2.5, or PM10 emissions (SCAQMD 2023a). In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, the Project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best -available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Therefore, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with construction -related air quality beyond those identified in the 2002 IS/MND. Operations Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those typically associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), and stationary sources (e.g., diesel emergency backup generator) related to the Project. Consistent with what was discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood recreational facility; as such, it is expected that many visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.). The Project components themselves would not generate a substantial increase in vehicular trips, however, it would enable use of the facilities for more hours of operation due to lighting. The 2002 IS/MND estimates that there would be 90 trips on any given day. Conservatively estimating that lighting would enable 25% more trips to the site on a daily basis, that equates to 22 more vehicle trips which may potentially result in 112 trips per day. Emissions associated with this quantity of DAVID MARCH PARK 4-9 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist vehicle trips for the Modified Project would not result in impacts substantially beyond those that were identified in the 2002 IS/MND. Carbon Monoxide Hotsaot Vehicular trips contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of a Modified Project. The primary mobile -source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. The Modified Project would not result in significant localized or regional emissions during Project construction or operation due to the low magnitude of vehicle trips. In addition, given the extremely low level of CO concentrations expected in the vicinity of the Project Site and the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, the additional trips that would result from the Modified Project are not expected to contribute significantly to, or result in CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, once the Modified Project is constructed, the Modified Project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions and sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project operation. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not involve the storage of material or chemicals in the Project Site that would have the potential to cause odor impacts during construction or operations. Likewise, no activities would occur that would cause odor impacts during operation of the Modified Project, which consists of additional sports field lighting and stairs. During Project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary, limited to the construction period and do not rise to the level of a public nuisance. Also, these odors were assumed for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND. As such, the Modified Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-10 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Conclusion The air quality impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the air quality analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 Final IS/MND disclosed that disturbed coastal sage scrub within the Project Site would be impacted by the Project. The 2002 Final IS/MND identified two narrow drainages on the project site. Regarding special status plants, the 2002 Final IS/MND determined that the only notable special status plant species with potential to occur on the project site was the slender -horned spineflower. Because the potential habitat for this species was being avoided (i.e. wash habitat), no focused surveys were conducted. Regarding special status wildlife, Coastal California gnatcatcher was addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcherwere conducted in 2001, which found the species to be absent within the Project site The 2002 Final IS/MND included mitigation measure M-IV.2, which requires pre -construction nesting bird surveys and protection of active nests. Mitigation Measures M-IV.I The County shall mitigate impacts to the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off - site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve. M-IV.2 If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300-foot buffer from the limits of grading no more than 15 days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed. During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of construction. If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-11 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.4.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ [d1 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ❑ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. To evaluate existing conditions within the Project Site, a biological field survey and Biological Technical Memorandum were prepared for the Modified Project in 2024 (Psomas 2024a). Vegetation in the biological survey area is consistent with conditions described in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Vegetation throughout the majority of the biological survey area consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed (Acmispon g/aber) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fascicu/atum) with scattered individuals of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Herbaceous species scattered throughout the disturbed sage scrub include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), horehound (Marrubium vu/gare), red -stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), popcorn flower (P/agiobothrys sp.), pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), cudweed (Gnapha/tum sp.), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Ornamental DAVID MARCH PARK 4-12 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist vegetation such as turf grass and London plane trees (Platanus xhispanica) occurs in the existing park. CDFW provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands that are considered "Sensitive Natural Communities" based on their rarity and threat. Vegetation that occurs in the biological survey area would be consistent with the Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance and the Acmispon glaber [Lotus scoparius] Association. Neither of these vegetation communities are considered sensitive natural communities (Psomas 2024a). The additional stairs proposed as part of the Modified Project would impact a small quantity of coastal sage scrub habitat beyond what was assumed for the Approved Project. However, the limited loss of this vegetation would not be considered a significant impact given its low quality and the minimal quantity that would be removed by the Modified Project. Special Status Plants Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have been listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. Four federally and/or State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare plant species or Candidate were reported from the project region: Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1 B.1), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina; California Endangered, CRPR 1 B.1), slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1 B.1), and California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1 B.1). Nevin's barberry is not expected to occur because it was not observed during field surveys conducted in late 2023. This species is a perennial that is observable year-round. California Orcutt grass is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. Slender - horned spineflower is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable alluvial sage scrub wash habitat. However, San Fernando Valley spineflower has potential to occur. At the time of the 2002 Final IS/MND, all the records for San Fernando spineflower were historic; the species was believed to be extirpated from the region containing the Project Site. However, this species was rediscovered in the vicinity of the Project Site in 2011. Since then, several locations have been reported from southwest -facing slopes of coastal sage scrub in the Newhall area (Psomas 2024a). No focused plant surveys were previously conducted on the Project Site because the 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider that this species had potential to occur. Any loss of a State listed Endangered species would be considered regionally significant. If San Fernando Valley spineflower is present, it would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. Also, the literature review conducted by Psomas for the Modified Project in 2024 determined that there are several California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 B1 or 2132 that have been reported from region containing the Project Site. One CRPR 1 B species has potential to occur in the Project Site, which is the slender mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). Several locations of this species occur in the region containing the Project Site. One California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record occurs approximately one mile northeast of the Project Site in similar habitat. This species tends to occur as scattered individuals across a hillside. The proposed stair improvements proposed by the Modified Project would impact a very small extent of habitat for this species. Therefore, it is expected that if this species occurs, the impact would be considered less than significant. However, the significance would also depend on the size of the population that would be impacted (i.e., the number of individuals) in relation to the number of individuals recently reported in the project region. To confirm absence of special status plant species in the areas of the Project Site that would be directly impacted by the stair improvements, focused protocol surveys for special status plants are being conducted in 2024. If any special status plant DAVID MARCH PARK 4-13 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist are identified during those surveys, they will be flagged as environmentally sensitive areas and avoided during construction. Special Status Wildlife Thirteen federally and/or State listed Endangered or Threatened species, or those proposed for listing, were identified in the literature review conducted for the Modified Project in 2024, which include: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi; federally Threatened), quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; federally Endangered), unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni; federally Endangered, California Endangered), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus; federally Endangered, California Species of Special Concern), southern mountain yellow -legged frog (Rana muscosa; federally Endangered, California Endangered), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata; proposed federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; California Threatened), western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; federally Threatened, California Endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor, California Threatened). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. The quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur because it is believed to be extirpated from northern Los Angeles County. The unarmored threespine stickleback, arroyo toad, southern mountain yellow -legged frog, California red -legged frog, western pond turtle, western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and tricolored blackbird are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable aquatic, riparian, or freshwater marsh habitat. The Swainson's hawk could forage over the Project Site during migration but is not expected to occur in the region containing the Project Site for nesting. Of these species, only the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur in the Project Site and adjacent areas. Additionally, one state Candidate species also has potential to occur in the biological survey area, Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; proposed California Endangered). These species are discussed in more detail below. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in most of Baja California, Mexico's arid regions, but this subspecies is extremely localized in the United States, where it predominantly occurs in coastal regions of highly urbanized Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. In California, this subspecies is a resident of coastal sage scrub vegetation types. The breeding season for the coastal California gnatcatcher ranges from late February to August. Nests are generally placed in a shrub about three feet above ground. Santa Clarita is thought to be at the northern range of the species' distribution, and it is hypothesized that there is a small but reliable breeding population in the Santa Clarita region. The USFWS published a Revised Final Rule designating Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher in 2007. This Revised Critical Habitat designates 197,303 acres in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The biological survey area is not located within the designated Revised Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed at several locations around Santa Clarita, including multiple locations where previous protocol focused surveys determined them to be absent but more recent surveys found them to be present. Breeding California gnatcatchers were observed in 2018 and 2019 in Santa Clarita approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project Site. Protocol -level presence/absence surveys DAVID MARCH PARK 4-14 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted to support the IS/MND that was prepared for the Approved Project in 2001; no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during those surveys. However, given the observation of coastal California gnatcatcher observations in the vicinity in recent years, and the presence of suitable coastal sage scrub habitat within the additional areas that would be impacted by the proposed stairs, the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur. Any loss of occupied habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, protocol -level presence/absence surveys were conducted in 2024 within the area that would be impacted by the stairs to confirm absence of this species in this area. No coastal California gnatcatcher were detected during those surveys. Crotch's Bumble Bee Crotch's bumble bee is proposed as a Candidate to be State listed as Endangered. This species was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND due to it not being special status at the time of publication. Crotch's bumble bee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows; it can be found in most native habitat types, although it prefers grassland and scrub habitats. It is primarily associated with plants from the following families: Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae. A historic observation (1978) is located approximately 3.3 miles to the southeast. The nearest recent observations (2023) of Crotch's bumble bee is approximately 2 miles east of the Project Site. The stairs proposed by the Modified Project contain potentially suitable habitat for Crotch's bumble bee. Loss of occupied habitat for a state Candidate Endangered species would be considered potentially significant. As such, focused surveys are being conducted in 2024 prior to construction to confirm absence of this species in these areas of the Project Site. If no Crotch's bumble bee are observed during the 2024 surveys, no further action shall be required within the year that the focused survey is conducted, and no further actions shall be necessary. Because Crotch's bumble bee moves ground nests annually, the pre -construction focused survey(s) shall be repeated if construction does not begin before the spring (i.e., March 1) following the previous focused survey(s). If required, the updated Crotch's bumble bee surveys shall occur between April and August, which is the colony active period for this species. If Crotch's bumble bee is present as determined by the focused survey(s), the City shall consult with CDFW to determine if a permit (2081 or 2080.1) will be needed under applicable laws and regulations. If a permit is required under applicable laws and regulations, then the City shall obtain said permit prior to initiation of construction activities within the relevant work area. If a permit is required, additional CEQA documentation may be required. If a ground nest is observed, it shall be protected in place until it is no longer active as determined by the qualified Biologist. An initial protective buffer of at least 100 feet shall be established around the active ground nest until CDFW can be consulted. A qualified Biologist shall determine the protective buffer distance needed depending on the location with respect to construction activities and the type of construction activities occurring; CDFW shall approve the protective buffer distance needed. A Letter Report shall be prepared to document the results of the pre -construction survey(s) and shall be provided to CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey(s). DAVID MARCH PARK 4-15 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Conclusion Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted above under threshold (a), the Modified Project would not result in any impacts to sensitive natural communities. The stairs proposed by the Modified Project would occur within upland areas of the Project Site that do not contain any drainages or riparian habitat. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. One drainage occurs in the northern portion of the Project Site, which would not be impacted by the Modified Project. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. The proposed additional project features would not impact this drainage. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas would be considered "wildlife corridors" if they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man- made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. The Project Site is located in an area that is undeveloped with some undeveloped areas to the north (across Via Joyce Drive) and south (across Plum Canyon Road). However, these undeveloped areas that remain within the areas are constrained by residential development to the east and west. Therefore, the Project Site is located in an area that would be regarded as a wildlife corridor that could be used to access larger areas of open space along ridgelines and canyons to the northwest and south. The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement given the limited quantity and low quality of the habitat that would be removed. Also, the stairs and lighting proposed as part of the Modified Project would not result in any barriers to wildlife movement. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, §10.13). Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird's nest or any bird's eggs. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take and possession of DAVID MARCH PARK 4-16 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist any migratory nongame bird, as designated in the MBTA. Birds have potential to nest throughout the biological survey area in vegetation, on bare ground, and on adjacent structures (i.e., transmission towers). If construction would be initiated during the nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre -construction survey would be required to ensure that no nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre -construction survey for nesting birds and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required. Structures adjacent to the biological survey area have potential to be used for nesting by raptors. Regulations prohibit activities that "take, possess, or destroy" any raptor nest or egg (California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, and 3513). Additionally, the noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting raptor adjacent to the proposed project. If construction would be initiated during the raptor nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre - construction survey would be required to ensure that no raptor nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre -construction survey for nesting birds, which would also include nesting raptors, and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). With implementation of existing mitigation measures, the Modified Project would result in similar impacts as to the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Section 17.51.040 of the City's Municipal Code addresses oak tree preservation. No oak tree can be removed on any public or private property within the City except in accordance with the conditions of a valid oak tree permit issued by the City, in conformance with Section 17.23.170 of the Municipal Code. The stair improvements proposed by the Modified Project would not require the removal of any oak trees. As such, the Project would not conflict with the City's oak tree preservation requirements. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other habitat conservation plans that are applicable to the Project Site. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The biological resources impact of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not DAVID MARCH PARK 4-17 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the biological resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND Cultural resources investigations were conducted as part of the preparation of the 2002 IS/MND in 2000. The results from the 2000 cultural resources records search identified six archaeological sites consisting of one precontact archaeological site (prior to the arrival of Europeans) and five historic -era sites (after the arrival of Europeans) within a half -mile of the Project site. None of the six archaeological sites identified were located within the 2002 IS/MND Project site. Additionally, an archaeological field survey was conducted for the Project on November 2000. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey. The conclusion for the 2002 cultural resources study was that the Project would not impact cultural resources with implementation of mitigation measure M.V.1, which specified procedures if previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered during construction. Mitigation Measures M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-18 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.5.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of formal cemeteries? Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. A Cultural Resources Memorandum was prepared for the Modified Project by Psomas, which is included as Appendix B of this Addendum (Psomas 2024b). An updated literature review and records search were conducted for the Modified Project in November 2023, which revealed that seven cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the Project Site. These studies are described below in Table 1. The studies consisted primarily of archaeological surveys, archaeological field studies, and archaeological evaluations. None of the cultural resource studies occurred within or overlapped the Project Site. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-19 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist TABLE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN'/2-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Report No. Author(s) (Year) Title An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources by the LA-00904 Wlodarski (1979) Proposed Development of Tentative Tracts: 30546, 30562, and 30599 Located in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles County, California LA-01114 Toren (1976) Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the Proposed Development of Tract No. 32615 in Valencia, California LA-02590 Rasson and Greenwood An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, a 220 Acre (1992) Parcel in Plum Canyon, Los Angeles County LA-03690 Wlodarski (1997) Cultural Resources Evaluation, City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR LA-04843 Allen (1999) Addendum to Cultural Resources Reassessment of the Camp Joseph Scott Project Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Reassessment LA-05137 Anonymous (1999) of the Bouquet Canyon Project, County of Los Angeles (VTT 52192, 52193, and 52194) LA-12691 Simon (2010) Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Fire Station 128 Alternate Site, Los Angeles County, California Source: SCCIC 2023. Eight archaeological sites were identified within the half mile search radius of the Project, as shown in Table 2. One of the cultural resources (P-30-000295) is a precontact rock shelter. The remaining seven cultural resources include six historic -era archaeological and one historic -era built environment (structure). None of the eight cultural resources are located within the Project Site. TABLE 2 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN'/2-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Primary Number Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description P-19-000295 CA-LAN-295 Riddell (1963) Precontact: rock shelter P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041 H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Rasson and LeCount Historic: refuse scatter; structural remains P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-004853 — Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains; water conveyance system; remnants of wall Source: SCCIC 2023. Based on the cultural resources information from the 2002 IS/MND and 2023 SCCIC literature review and records search discussed above, there are no new cultural resources within the Project Site that would be impacted by the Modified Project. However, it is possible that during Project -related ground disturbance that intact cultural resources may be encountered. Impacts to DAVID MARCH PARK 4-20 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist such resources would be significant under CEQA. Therefore, the Project would implement mitigation measure.V.1 from the 2002 IS/MND during Project construction to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered cultural resources associated with the Project to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. With implementation of mitigation measure V 1 impacts related to historical and archeological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. There is no indication that there are any formal or informal cemeteries or burial sites present at the Project site, and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during Project development. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and policies, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, to addresses procedures to follow the discovery of human remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The cultural resources impact of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND For these reasons, no major revisions to the cultural resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.6 ENERGY 4.6.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND did not directly address energy impacts because energy analysis was not part of the required CEQA Checklist at the time that the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. Effective December 28, 2018, the State of California adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis of energy as a separate topic in CEQA documents. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required DAVID MARCH PARK 4-21 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.6.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis ENERGY —Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to ❑ ❑ ❑ wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable ❑ ❑ ❑ energy or energy efficiency? Would the Project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis evaluates the Modified Project's potential to increase the demand for energy through construction and operation of the Project, day-to-day operations, and fuel consumption associated with construction. Energy Consumption During Construction Construction activities would require energy for activities such as the manufacturing and transportation of building materials, grading activities, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Construction of the Project would require diesel and gasoline to fuel construction equipment. The Project would result in a minor amount of additional construction activities associated with the new lights and stairs that are proposed with the Modified Project. No unusual Project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State, or from what could have been previously assumed when the 2002 IS/MND was circulated for public review. In addition, construction activities would not result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the Project. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. As such, fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Energy Use During Operations Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project was expected to result in nominal additional traffic when compared to pre -Project conditions. The Modified Project has the potential to result in minor increases in the usage of the park through the addition of new amenities, lit ball fields and stairs that will be used for exercise purposes. Also, the proposed sports field lighting would result in energy consumption. The energy consumption for the new lighting fixtures that are proposed as part of the Modified Project was DAVID MARCH PARK 4-22 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist calculated based on the number of kilowatts each fixture of lighting would consume and the hours the lighting would be operating under typical conditions. Energy consumption was calculated for a typical day in the winter (December [5 hours coinciding with sun setting at 5:00 PM and park closure at 10:00 PM]) as well as a typical day in the summer (June [2 hours coinciding with sun setting at 8:00 PM and park closure at 10:00 PM]). Table 3 depicts the energy consumption for a typical day. TABLE 3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR ATYPICAL DAY Baseball Baseball Basketball Basketball Walkway Walkway Field Field Court Court Parking Parking Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Total Energy Total Energy (Winter (Summer (Winter (Summer (Winter (Summer Consumption Consumption Day) Day) Day) Day) Day) Day) (Winter Day) (Summer Day) Energy consumption 33.90 kW 33.90 kW 2.16 kW 2.16 kW 3.12 kW 3.12 kW 39.20 kW 39.20 kW (kW) Hours of 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 operation Total Energy 169.50 67.80 consumption kWH kWH 10.80 kWH 4.32 kWH 15.60 kWH 6.24 kWH 196.00 kWH 78.40 kWH (kWH) Source: Musco Lighting, LLC 2023 As shown in Table 3, the total energy consumption for all of the lighting fixtures would be 196 kWH during a typical winter evening and 78 kWH during a typical summer evening. The baseball field lighting would consume a total of 169 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 68 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening. Meanwhile, the lighting for the basketball court would consume a total of 11 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 4 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening. Lastly, the walkways and parking lot lighting would consume a total of 16 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 6 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening. Additionally, the Project would comply with the current CALGreen Code and the Energy Efficiency Code regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Electrical demand associated with the Modified Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary since it supports the use of local recreational facilities. The Project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, which would substantially reduce energy usage. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. The Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to energy and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code, which includes the latest in energy efficiency standards. The Modified Project was analyzed for consistency with the State's adopted 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to embed equity and environmental justice programs agency - wide, expand the State's analysis of the climate benefits of hydrogen and engage in the federal Hydrogen Hub initiative, and the transition away from petroleum fuels and toward reliable and equitable transportation fuels. In addition, the Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results DAVID MARCH PARK 4-23 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist of the California Energy Commission's (CEC's) assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Energy usage during construction of the Modified Project would be temporary in nature and relatively small in comparison to the overall energy usage in the City. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the Project would be relatively minimal in comparison to the overall use in Santa Clarita, and the State's available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the Modified Project's total impact on regional energy supplies would be minimal, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation plans as described in the CEC's Integrated Energy Policy Report. Evaluate the Project with the IEP Report mentioned above. Additionally, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, as detailed above. Therefore, the Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with consistency with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to energy that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The energy impacts of the Modified Project were not previously analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no significant impacts related to energy would occur due to the Project. 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4.7.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. It was determined that there are no Alquist-Priolo zones within the vicinity of the Approved Project site. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level. The 2002 IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would not alter topography within the Project area. The IS/MND states that minimal excavation would occur, and vegetation would be planted after construction; therefore, no significant erosion impacts were expected, and no mitigation was required related to geology and soils. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-24 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Additionally, the Approved Project does not involve the development of habitable structures; the restroom/maintenance building associated with the approved Project would be built in compliance with uniform building codes to ensure stable soils before construction. Therefore, no impacts from unstable soils were expected to occur from implementation of the Approved Project. The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project site consists of surficial soils, which are classified as non -expansive soils. Therefore, there would be no impact due to expansive soils and no mitigation measures are required. The Approved Project would not involve the use of septic tanks to handle its wastewater generation. Therefore, no impacts were anticipated to result from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.7.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or site or unique geologic feature? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-25 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Would the Project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The closest fault to the Project Site is the San Gabriel fault, located approximately 1.5 mile southwest of the Project Site. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, since earthquake -related hazards cannot be avoided in the Southern California region, the Project Site could be subjected to ground motion which could affect structures and/or park facilities. The proposed features of the Modified Project, the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs, would be designed and built in compliance with earthquake -resistant standards required by existing building codes (e.g., Title 24 of the State Building Code). Habitable structures are not included in the Modified Project, and all proposed structures would be constructed in compliance with uniform building codes. Therefore, the Modified Project is not expected to increase the risk of exposure of people to impacts involving fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to rupture of a known earthquake fault that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. ii) Strong seismic groundshaking? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults. These hazards can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake, such as surface rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world, which can cause phenomena such as liquefaction and ground lurching). Since there are no active faults at the site, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered very low. According to the 2002 IS/MND, the primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults. However, implementation of current codes and regulations identified in the City's Municipal Code would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and as such no risk of loss, injury, or death would be anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to strong seismic ground shaking that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high -intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist, shallow groundwater; low density non -cohesive (granular) soils; and high -intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while DAVID MARCH PARK 4-26 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Earthquake -induced landslides occur in areas where previous landslides have occurred and in areas where the topographic, geologic, geotechnical, and subsurface groundwater conditions are conducive to permanent ground displacements. The Modified Project does not consist of habitable structures and would be built in compliance with uniform building codes to ensure stable soils before construction. As such no risk of loss, injury, or death would be anticipated as a result of the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not substantially alter topography within the Project Site. Minimal excavation would occur for the installation of the light fixtures and exercise stairs. Vegetation would be planted after construction and the Project Site would be stabilized. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the analysis for the Approved Project, no habitable structures would be developed as part of the Modified Project. Furthermore, compliance with uniform building codes would ensure stability of soils and the Project Site during and following construction. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to soil instability that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Expansive soils are materials that, when subject to a constant load, are prone to expansion when exposed to water. As discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project Site consists of surficial soils, which are classified as non -expansive soils. As a result, there would be no impact due to expansive soils and no mitigation measures were required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-27 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project does not propose the use of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND did not identify any paleontological resources within the Project Site. Given that there are no known paleontological resources within the Project Site, the Modified Project would result in no impact related to this threshold and no mitigation is required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The geology and soils, including paleontological resources, impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the geology and soils and paleontological resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.8.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND Although the topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not part of the Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the 2002 IS/MND was prepared, the issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2002 IS/MND. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Many IS/MNDs from 2002 and earlier described how climate change (often called global warming) would result in sea -level rise and other environmental changes. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, the contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental DAVID MARCH PARK 4-28 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist impact was known at the time the Approved Project was approved and the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. Although the City finds that the issue of GHG impacts and climate change is not "new information" under PRC Section 21166, the following analysis for the Modified Project is provided for informational purposes. However, the 2002 IS/MND did not evaluate the effects of GHG emissions or consistency with GHG reduction plans. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.8.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that ❑ ❑ ❑ may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the ❑ ❑ ❑ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Demolition and construction activities associated with the Modified Project would produce combustion emissions. For example, during construction GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on -site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction of the Modified Project would not involve the use of construction equipment beyond the following pieces of equipment, identified in the 2002 IS/MND for the Approved Project: one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane. Additionally, construction would not extend beyond the sixth month period established in the 2002 IS/MND for the Approved Project. The Modified Project involves installation of sports field lighting and exercise stairs; as such, development of the Modified Project is not expected to generate new daily trips during operations. The use of lighting would enable the recreational facilities to be used for a larger portion of the day and greater amount of GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips and energy consumption. However, the relatively small magnitude of recreational uses for a neighborhood park with a single baseball field, basketball court and other small amenities would still not result in a substantial amount of GHG emissions even with greater use of the facilities with nighttime lighting. As such, operation and construction of the Modified Project would not generate significant GHG emissions DAVID MARCH PARK 4-29 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist that would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with operational GHG emissions, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. An evaluation of the Modified Project's consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP), the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS is provided below. City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan The City of Santa Clarita has a CAP, which identifies the City's vision and goals on achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in the community. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park's visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Moreover, operation of the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs would not generate a significant number of new trips and would result in a nominal increase in energy consumption and GHG emissions compared to the uses within the Approved Project. Moreover, the Modified Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code and Energy Efficiency Code, which include the latest in energy efficiency standards, consistent with the goals of the City's CAP. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict with the City's CAP. 2022 Scoping Plan The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses the State's progress towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier through the reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan takes an aggressive approach to decreasing fossil fuel use and decarbonization of every sector of emissions. Measures include moving to zero -emission transportation, phasing out the use of fossil fuel gas used for heating, reduction in the use of chemicals and refrigerants with high global warming potential, development of sustainable infrastructure that provides opportunities for walking, biking and public transit to reduce reliance on automobiles, and development of renewable energy. As stated previously, and consistent with the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park's visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Moreover, operation of the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs would not generate substantially more trips and would result in a nominal increase in energy consumption compared to the uses within the Approved Project. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted Connect SoCal—The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). In general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from automobiles and light -duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these sources. For the SCAG region, CARB has set GHG reduction targets at 8 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020, and 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The RTP/SCS lays out a strategy for DAVID MARCH PARK 4-30 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist the region to meet these targets. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that would achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the region's targets include planning for new growth around high -quality transit areas and livable corridors and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation and plan for more active lifestyles. As stated previously, and in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project Site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park's visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Consistent with the RTP/SCS, the Project promotes neighborhood mobility areas and meets local recreation needs such that local residents would not need to commute further for recreational resources. Moreover, the Project would not conflict with any of the goals or strategies within the RTP/SCS. Overall, the Modified Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impacts would be less than significant, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no significant impacts related to GHG emissions would occur due to the Project. 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.9.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND As identified in the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to hazardous materials. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there are no hazardous materials identified within the Project Site. Additionally, oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, impacts were considered less than significant. Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project Site is located approximately ten miles northeast of Agua Dulce Airport. Accordingly, the Approved Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area or visiting the park. No mitigation measures are required. The 2002 IS/MND also determined that the Approved Project would not interfere with a current emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan for local, state or federal agencies. Access to all local roads would be maintained during construction. Any emergency procedures would be implemented within local, state, and federal guidelines during construction and operation DAVID MARCH PARK 4-31 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist of the Approved project. Therefore, no significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, according to the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved project would not expose people or structures to fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees. Standard safety procedures and best management practices would be employed during construction, minimizing the potential risk for accidents to occur, including fires. Also, on -site landscaping would be maintained and watered regularly so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. Accordingly, implementation of the Approved Project would not pose a long-term fire hazard. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.9.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-32 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, there are no hazardous materials identified within the Project Site, or within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally, oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, the Modified Project's impact on creating long-term significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. The nearest school to the Modified Project Site is Plum Canyon Elementary School, located approximately 0.16 mile east of the Project Site. Operations of the Modified Project would not involve activities that could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Project construction would not involve the transport of hazardous materials beyond what was identified in the 2002 IS/MND. As such, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CaIEPA 2023). Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the Modified Project site is Agua Dulce Airport, located approximately ten miles northeast of the Project site. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-33 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, including the California Emergency Management System (SEMS), adopted by the City, and the City's 2003 Multihazard Functional Plan. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting; as such, the Modified Project would not interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within a park. As such, the Modified Project would not develop any habitable structures that would be exposed to wildfires. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hazards and hazardous materials analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-34 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.10.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that the implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated with compliance with regulations including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit and preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Impacts to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were deemed less than significant. Further, the 2002 IS/MND identified that implementation of the Approved Project would reduce impervious surface area of the site by less than 0.25 acre. As such, it was determined that the Approved Project would not noticeably affect the local groundwater supply and no mitigation measures were required. Regarding drainage and erosion, the 2002 IS/MND determined that minimal grading would be required to prepare the Approved Project site for construction and, therefore, existing drainage patterns would be maintained, and runoff from the park would be directed to the local storm drain network. Runoff from the Approved Project site would drain to one of two storm drains along the eastern boundary of the site or to the curbside storm drains along Via Joyce Drive or Plum Canyon Road. The 2002 IS/MND also states that minor improvements on existing surface drainage structure may be required in the northeast corner of the Project site to avoid drainage problems at the previously proposed tennis court site; however, such issues were determined to be less than significant and would be resolved during the detailed design phase of the project. No erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off -site was anticipated to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts were expected to occur; no mitigation measures were required. The 2002 IS/MND states that because no housing was proposed for the Approved Project and the Project site was not located within an area designated as 100-year or 500-year flood plain, implementation of the Approved Project would not subject people or structures to significant flooding impacts. No mitigation measures were required. The Approved Project site was not located near a body of water; therefore, the 2002 IS/MND determined that potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is very low, if non-existent. Accordingly, implementation of the Approved Project would not subject people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures were required. Mitiaation Measures No mitigation measures were required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-35 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.10.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ Q requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. Operation of these facilities would not increase stormwater runoff or stormwater contamination. Short-term construction impacts from the Modified Project would be minimized through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit, which requires filing a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include (1) erosion and sediment -control BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit and (2) BMPs that control other potential construction -related pollutants. A SWPPP would be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the NPDES Construction General Permit. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-36 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to short- and long- term potential water quality -related impacts that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater groundwater recharge such that the management of the basin? supplies or interfere substantially with project impede sustainable groundwater No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. However, this minor amount of stormwater would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Otherwise, the Modified Project would not involve any groundwater extraction or usage. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation given that a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to minimize stormwater effects. The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. However, this minor amount of stormwater would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Otherwise, the Modified Project would not involve any groundwater extraction or usage. The Modified Project does not occur within a floodplain nor does the Project Site contain any major drainages. As such, the Modified Project would have no potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-37 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Modified Project site is not located near a body of water; therefore, there is minimal potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Accordingly, implementation of the Modified Project would not subject people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Project would not result in new significant impacts pertaining to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche that would release pollutants due to inundation, that were not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation given that a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to minimize stormwater effects. As such, the Modified Project would not impair implementation of a water quality control plan. The Modified Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to sustainable groundwater management plan that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The hydrology and water quality impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hydrology and water quality analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-38 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.11.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community, as the Project site consisted of open space at the time of analysis. Additionally, at the time of preparation of the 2002 IS/MND the Approved Project site was located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. Development in this area was governed by local and regional plans including the County of Los Angeles General Plan and the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The general plan land use designation for the site was Urban I, which allows for low -density residential development (1.1 to 3.3 units per acre). The site was zoned as Residential Planned Development (RPD). This land use designation and zoning classification allows for public park uses, such as the Approved Project. As such, it was determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with general plan or zoning designations. No mitigation measures were required. The California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program incorporates a broad -based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there were no active NCCP areas in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest such NCCP area was located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula nearly 50 miles south of the Approved Project site. Also, there were no HCP planning areas in the immediate vicinity of the Approved Project site. Therefore, it was concluded that the Approved project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities conservation plans. No mitigation measures were required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.11.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with ❑ ❑ ❑ [d1 any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-39 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. As such, the Modified Project would not result in any physical division of established communities. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site is designated as a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and a Zoning designation of Open Space (OS). Both OS designations allow for active open space uses, including public and private parks. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. These additional uses and facilities would be consistent with these land use and planning designations. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The land use and planning impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the land use and planning analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.12.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND Regarding mineral resources, the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would involve the use of construction materials, which include non-renewable resources. However, the construction of the Approved project would follow industry standards and would not use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Additionally, it was determined that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value; therefore, it was concluded that there was no potential for significant impacts related to mineral resources. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-40 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.12.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. These Project features have no potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Furthermore, the Project Site is located adjacent to residential uses making the Project Site impractical for use for mineral extraction. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The mineral resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no substantial changes to the mineral resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-41 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.13 NOISE 4.13.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that the implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to construction noise with the implementation of mitigation measures M-X1.1, M-X1.2, and M-X1.3. The 2002 IS/MND also concluded that noise levels associated with traffic generation resulting from the operation of the Modified project is not expected to increase nor affect the ambient noise levels. It is important to note that the 2002 IS/MND did not analyze construction vibration. The 2002 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area or people visiting the project site to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips since there are no public or private airstrips and airports located within two miles of the Project site. Mitigation Measures The 2002 IS/MND determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to address noise generated during Project construction: M-XI.I Project construction shall comply with the County .of Los Angeles Noise Code. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays -Fridays; prior written approval shall be obtained to conduct construction activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays. M-X1.2 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. M-X1.3 Temporary noise mufflers and noise attenuating devices, particularly along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to the single-family residences, shall be employed to reduce noise generated during construction. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-42 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.13.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase ❑ ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ [d1 noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Would the Project: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Two types of temporary noise impacts would occur during construction (i.e., temporary increases in ambient noise levels): (1) equipment delivery and construction worker commutes; and (2) construction operations. The first type of temporary (short-term) construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site and construction worker commutes. The 2002 IS/MND assumed that construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six- month timeframe. There would be no substantial change in the number or type of construction equipment from what was contemplated in the 2002 IS/MND. Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise Potential sources of noise during operation could include evening sporting events, which may not have been possible without the provision of lighting for the sports fields. Traffic Noise Impacts to Off -Site Receivers Consistent with the findings in the 2002 IS/MND, the implementation of the Modified Project would not result in significant changes to traffic generation. Therefore, noise levels associated with traffic generation resulting from the operation of the Modified Project is not expected to increase nor affect the ambient noise levels. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-43 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Short-term Vibration Impacts The 2002 IS/MND did not analyze construction vibration. Nevertheless, ground -borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate given the number and type of equipment that would be utilized to implement the Project. Vibration impacts of the Modified Project would be similar to what could have reasonably been assumed for the Approved Project. Long-term Vibration Impacts The 2002 IS/MND did not evaluate potential long-term vibration impacts. The streets surrounding the Project Site are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant ground -borne vibration. It is therefore assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur, and no vibration impact analysis of on -road vehicles is necessary. Additionally, once constructed, the Modified Project would facilitate evening recreational activities such as basketball and little -league baseball games. These type of activities do not typically generate ground -borne vibration. Therefore, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with long-term vibration impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required. Conclusion Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there would be no impact pertaining to aircraft noise exposure. Since the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the Modified Project would not expose people residing or working in the area or people visiting the Project site to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The noise impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no DAVID MARCH PARK 4-44 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the noise analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.14.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur related to population and housing. The Approved Project would not have any growth -inducing effects, as it was a response to an existing need for recreational facilities. Additionally, the Approved Project site was vacant at the time the IS/MND was prepared; as such, the Approved Project did not involve the removal of land uses, particularly residential land uses, from the Project site. It was therefore determined that no existing housing or residents would be displaced as a result of the Approved Project. No mitigation measures were required. Mitiaation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.14.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial number of existing people or housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the Project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conclusions of the 2002 IS/MND, the Modified Project would not have any growth -inducing effects. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within a park. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-45 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project Site does not contain any housing. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The population and housing impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the population and housing analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.15.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the Approved Project were less than significant. Because the Approved Project was not anticipated to generate a significant fire hazard, the demand for fire protection services in the area was not expected to increase. Likewise, the Approved Project was not anticipated to generate a significant demand for police protection services in the area because of its size and purpose of use. No mitigation measures were necessary. Similarly, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not have any growth - inducing effects. Most of the visitors of the local park would be from the adjacent residential and neighboring areas; therefore, no impacts on school enrollment, parks, or other public facilities were expected. No mitigation measures were necessary. Mitiaation Measures No mitigation measures were required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-46 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.15.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Environmental Issues New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES —Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ [d1 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ [d1 Would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities (libraries)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conclusions of the 2002 IS/MND, the Modified Project would not have any growth -inducing effects. Most of the visitors of the local park would be from the adjacent residential and neighboring areas; therefore, no substantial impacts on fire protection, police protection, school enrollment, parks, or other public facilities were expected. The park would require fire and police emergency response; however, the Project Site already generates demands for these public services. As such, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact related to this threshold. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-47 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Conclusion The public services impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the public services analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.16 RECREATION 4.16.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur related to recreation. The 2002 IS/MND concluded that The Approved Project would not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks. Conversely, the Approved Project would provide additional recreational opportunities by providing the community with recreational facilities, children's play area, a multi- purpose field, and picnic areas. Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND determined that, at the time of analysis, the Santa Clarita Valley Regional Planning Area, which includes the Project Site, would have a deficiency of 233.7 acres of local parkland. The Approved Project would involve development of a local park to increase recreational opportunities in the community, slightly alleviating the deficiency in recreation facilities in the area. As such, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures were necessary related to recreation. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.16.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis RECREATION —Would the project (a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or ❑ ❑ ❑ expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-48 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Would the Project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of exercise stairs and sports field lighting, which are being implemented along with a comprehensive redevelopment of David March Park. Any ongoing deterioration would be prevented by the City through the implementation of routine maintenance. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would include the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The potential environmental effects of the development and operation of these proposed stairs and lighting are evaluated herein within this Addendum and in the 2002 IS/MND. Since the Modified Project does not involve residential land uses that would increase the demand for recreational facilities, the Modified Project would not result in a substantial increased demand for recreational facilities, requiring the construction of new parks that would adversely affect the environment. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The recreation impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the recreation analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-49 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.17 TRANSPORTATION 4.17.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND Transportation/Circulation analysis evaluated existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions with implementation of Phase I of the Approved Project, and traffic conditions following implementation of Phase 11 of the Approved Project. The Approved Project is a neighborhood park facility. As such, many of the park's visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. On the busiest day of the week, Saturday, the 2002 IS/MND determined that 86 vehicular trips would occur. As such, it was determined that nearby intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during operation of the Approved Project as no significant increases in average delay times and volume -to capacity ratios would be expected. Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that no impacts would occur related to geometric design features. The analysis states that the Approved Project and the parking lot would meet all applicable design and safety requirements; therefore, no hazards associated with a design feature would occur. No mitigation measures were required related to geometric design features and related roadway hazards. It was determined that no changes in access to emergency facilities or nearby land uses would occur as a result of implementation of the Approved Project, and no mitigation measures were required. Furthermore, the 2002 IS/MND found that impacts related to parking capacity would be less than significant, as a total of 15 parking spaces would be provided under each phase of park construction (for a total of 30 parking spaces at project buildout). As such, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that peak hour trip generation would not exceed the available parking supply. In the event that additional parking is needed, street parking would be available along Via Joyce Drive. Impacts related to parking supply were determined to be less 'than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures was required. The IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. As discussed above, many park users would arrive on foot or by other non -vehicular means of transportation. To accommodate bicycle riders, bicycle racks would be provided as part of the Approved Project. No mitigation measures were required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required DAVID MARCH PARK 4-50 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.17.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis TRANSPORTATION — Would the project a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing ❑ ❑ ❑ the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design ❑ ❑ ❑ Q feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Would the project a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system, nor is the Modified Project anticipated to increase the number of trips to/from the Project Site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Accordingly, transportation analyses for CEQA require analysis of transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics instead of level of service (LOS), which was previously the metric used for CEQA transportation analyses. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released revisions to its proposed State CEQA Guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The Modified Project does not propose any changes in land use within the Project Site that would have the potential to increase the number of trips to/from the Project Site, nor would the Modified Project result in any substantial changes to vehicle miles traveled due to the park's local -serving purpose. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-51 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within an entitled public park. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system. As such, the Modified Project would not result in any increased hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within an entitled public park. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system. As such, the Modified Project would not result in the potential for inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The transportation impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the transportation analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.18.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The Tribal Cultural Resources Section was not included in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist at the time the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. This section was added to the checklist in September 2016 and reflects the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requiring consultation with the Native American tribal governments on projects that were initiated on or after July 1, 2015. Mitigation measure M.V.1 also applies to tribal cultural resources. Mitiaation Measures M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-52 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist 4.18.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ❑ ❑ ❑ Q discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Would the Project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) ? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 pertaining to Native American Tribal Consultation is required for projects with publicly circulated CEQA documents, such as EIRs, MNDs, or NDs filed on or after July 1, 2015. The present Addendum does not require circulation for public review; thus, discussion of the tribal consultation process and analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources is not required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-53 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist The Modified Project would result in a minor increase of the impact footprint when compared to what was assumed for the Approved Project. As described in the Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known cultural resources within the Project Site. Therefore, it is unlikely that tribal cultural resources would be encountered within these areas. To minimize impacts, mitigation measure M.V.1, which specified procedures if previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered during construction. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The tribal cultural resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the cultural resource impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the tribal cultural resources analysis provided in the IS/MND are required. 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.19.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not use a significant amount of water as the only uses on -site that would use water would be the restroom buildings and landscaped areas and the multi -purpose field, which would both require irrigation. Similarly, wastewater generation would also be minimal as the only use on -site that would generate wastewater would be the restroom buildings. No new wastewater and water systems would be required. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment and water treatment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required. The IS/MND found that the Approved Project would not require new solid waste facilities. Construction debris would be recycled or transported to the nearest landfill sites and disposed of appropriately. The nearest landfill to the Approved Project site was the Chiquita Canyon Landfill located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive in Castaic, approximately 15 miles from the project site; other landfills sites within 30 miles of the site were Bradley West Landfill (approximately 25 miles away), Sunshine Canyon Landfill (approximately 26 miles away), and Antelope Valley Landfill (approximately 30 miles away)." The amount of debris generated during project construction and operation was not expected to significantly impact landfill capacities; solid waste generation by the operation of the Approved Project was found to be minimal. The Approved Project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste Operation of the Project would be subject to the requirements set forth in the County's Solid Waste Management Program. Although no significant impacts to solid waste facilities were anticipated, the following measures were implemented to further ensure solid waste minimization during project construction and operation. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-54 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures M-XVI.I Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and tile development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and implemented whenever possible. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the incorporation of this requirement. M-XV1.2 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the incorporation of this requirement. 4.19.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Environmental Issues New Significant Impact More New Ability Severe to Impacts Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and ❑ ❑ ❑ Q reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Would the Project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or DAVID MARCH PARK 4-55 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Water and Wastewater The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for water or wastewater. Storm Water Drainaae The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs that could result in increased stormwater runoff. However, this minor amount of stormwater runoff has been accounted for in the Project's drainage plans to ensure adequacy of downstream receiving drainage facilities. Electricity As described in Section 4.5, Energy, the Modified Project would implement new lighting fixtures that would require electricity. The Project Site is already served by electricity; therefore, no upgrades or relocation of electrical infrastructure would be required for the Modified Project. Natural Gas The Modified Project consists of implementation of lighting fixtures and exercise stairs. No natural gas usage is proposed. Telecommunications The Modified Project consists of implementation of lighting fixtures and exercise stairs. No telecommunications facilities are proposed. Conclusion Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for water. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? DAVID MARCH PARK 4-56 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for wastewater. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the generation of operational solid waste. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. The contractor would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The utilities and service systems impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the utilities and service systems analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND Effective December 28, 2018, the State adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis and mitigation of wildfire as a separate topic in CEQA documents. The 2002 IS/MND was adopted prior to the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines amendments, and as such, responses to wildfire as a separate topic was not addressed. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-57 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist However, the 2002 IS/MND addressed exposure of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. According to the 2002 IS/MND, Implementation of the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees. Standard safety procedures and best management practices would be employed during construction, minimizing the potential risk for accidents to occur, including fires. Also, on -site landscaping would be maintained and watered regularly so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. The barbecue facilities in the group picnic area would be located over 50 feet from the nearest undeveloped area to the east. Accordingly, it was determined that the siting of the park facilities would not pose a long-term fire hazard, and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were required. 4.20.1 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS New More New Ability No Environmental Issues Significant Severe to Substantial Impact Impacts Substantially Change Reduce From Significant Previous Impact Analysis WILDFIRE— If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate ❑ ❑ ❑ wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including ❑ ❑ ❑ downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project is within a local responsibility area and the southern portion of the site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as defined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would have no potential to impair any emergency response or evacuation plans. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-58 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire, nor would they require any associated infrastructure that could result in ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire or to the secondary effects of wildfire. Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The wildfire impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the wildfire analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required. DAVID MARCH PARK 4-59 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist This page intentionally left blank DAVID MARCH PARK 4-60 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, there is substantial evidence to determine that (1) the Modified Project does not represent a substantial change from the previously approved project evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken; and (3) the Modified Project has not introduced new information of substantial importance that was not previously known. The Modified Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND. No new mitigation measures are recommended in addition to those adopted at the time the 2002 IS/MND was certified that would further reduce Project impacts. The 2002 IS/MND, when considered in conjunction with this Addendum, provides adequate documentation, pursuant to the CEQA for the Approved and Modified Projects. DAVID MARCH PARK 5-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022- scoping-plan- documents#:-:text=The%202022%20Scoping%20PIan%20Update%20focuses%20on% 20outcomes%2Oneeded%20to,economic%2C%20environ mental %2C%20energy%20se curity%2C California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen California Code of Regulations (CCR). 1991. California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Act of 1991. https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-public-resources- code/division-30-waste-management/part-3-state-programs/chapter-18-california-solid- waste-reuse-and-recycling-access-act-of California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey (CGS). 2023a. California Seismic Hazards Zone Mapper. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shma 2023b. Landslide Inventory. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Isi/ 2023c. State Mining and Geology Board. Guidelines For Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf. 2023d. CGS Information Waterhouse: Mineral Land Classification. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.htmI?map=mIc. 2015 Fault Activity Map of California. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2007. FHSZ Viewer. Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023a. California State Scenic Highways System Map — ArcGIS Online. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8O571 l 6f1 aacaa. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023 (February). Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report (I EPR). https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 02/Adopted_2022_I EPR_Update_with_errata_ada.pdf 2022 (December). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code). https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-building-energy-efficiency-standards- residential-and-nonresidential DAVID MARCH PARK 6-1 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION References California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA). 2023. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Sacramento, CA: CaIEPA. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&s ite_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+A ND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2013. Senate Bill (SB) 743. Sacramento, CA: OPR. https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C.: FTA. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- in novation/118131 /transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Psomas. 2024a. Biological Technical Memorandum. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. 2024b. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. Pasadena, CA: Psomas. Santa Clarita, City of. 2023a. City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ 2023b. David March Park. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://santaclarita.gov/parks-division/blog/2023/06/07/david-march-park/. 2023c. Zoning Map. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://santaclarita.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/42/migration/UDC_zoning_Feb2023.pdf. 2015. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/rqbeiqzt/rpc-4-a-iii-city-of-santa-clarita-local-hazard- mitigation-plan-supplemental-_ada.pdf 2012a. Climate Action Plan. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://greensantaclarita.com/files/2012/1 0/APPROVE D-CAP-AUGUST-2012.pdf 2011 a. General Plan Land Use Element. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/2%20- %20Land%2OUse%20EIement.pdf. 2011 b. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/6%20- %20Conservation%20and%200pen%2OSpace%20EIement.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020—The 2020- 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) of the Southern California Association of Governments. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_O.pdf?1606001176 DAVID MARCH PARK 6-2 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION References Southern California Edison (SCE). 2023. Our Service Territory. Rosemead, CA: SCE. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are/leadership/our-service-territory Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2023. Company Profile. http://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-info.shtm1. San Diego, CA: SCGC. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023a (March, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. 2022. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- agmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16. 2016 (February). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air- plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb20l 6.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). SCAQMD. Diamond Bar, CA. DAVID MARCH PARK 6-3 ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Appendix A Biological Resources Memorandum Balancing the Natural and Built Environment January 30, 2024 Julia Regan VIA EMAIL City of Santa Clarita JREGAN@santa-clarita.com 23920 Valencia Blvd # 302 Valencia, California 91355 Subject: Results of a Biological Resources Update for the David March Park Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dear Julia Regan: This Letter Report presents the findings of a biological resources update for the David March Park project site (hereinafter referred to as the "project site") located in the City of Santa Clarita. Los Angeles County, California (Exhibit 1). The purpose of the survey was to evaluate current biological conditions on the project site and to analyze whether conditions were consistent with the 2002 Plum Canyon County Park Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (EDAW 2002). PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION David March Park is located in the north -central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 0.60 mile south of Bouquet Canyon Creek, 1.30 miles north of the Santa Clara River, and 3.84 miles east of San Francisquito Canyon. The biological survey area for the project is roughly bound by Plum Canyon Road on the south, Via Joyce Drive on the west, residential lots north of the developed portion of David March Park on the north, and by an easement for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power powerlines on the east. The biological survey area occurs on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mint Canyon 7.5-minute quadrangle at Section 7 of Township 4 North, Range 15 West (Exhibit 2). Topography in the survey area is relatively flat in the west with elevations ranging from approximately 1,512 to 1,430 feet above mean sea level (msl) from north to south, while topography in the east consist of undulating hills with elevations ranging from approximately 1,500 to 1,580 feet above msl. There are no blueline streams mapped in the biological survey area; however, there is one small drainage that occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area, outside of any proposed improvement areas. Land uses in the vicinity of the biological survey area consist of a mix of residential, transportation, and open space. Representative site photographs are included in Attachment A. Soils in the biological survey area consist of Ojai loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; Ojai loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes; and Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2024). The Ojai series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from material weathering from mostly sandstone or related sedimentary rocks. The Hanford series consists 225 South Lake Avenue of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium Suite 1000 dominantly from granite (USDA NRCS 2024). Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel 626.351.2000 Fax 626.351.2030 www.Psomas.com Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 2 The purpose of the biological survey is to analyze the impact of additional project features that were not included in the Final IS/MND. These additional project features consist of the installation of lighting improvements, including two basketball lights and six baseball lights, and a new stairway (Exhibit 3). SURVEY METHODS As mentioned above, the Final IS/MND was prepared for the project in 2002. The 2002 Final IS/MND summarized general and focused surveys conducted between 2000 and 2001 (EDAW 2002). Two biological reconnaissance surveys were conducted by EDAW, Inc. on November 15, 2000, and April 4, 2001. In addition, protocol focused surveys were conducted in 2001 for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a federally listed Threatened species, based on a recommendation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (EDAW 2002). Prior to the 2023 reconnaissance survey, Psomas conducted a literature review to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats that have been reported to occur in the vicinity of the biological survey area. Resources reviewed included the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2023) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2023 a). Database searches included the USGS' Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles; these quadrangles constitute the "project region". Psomas Senior Biologist Sarah Thomas performed a general survey of the biological survey area on December 28, 2023, to document current conditions and assess the suitability of the habitat to support special status plant and wildlife species. All plant and wildlife species detected during the survey were documented in field notes. Nomenclature of plant taxa conform to the Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2024a) for special status species and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2024) for all other taxa. Active searches for reptiles and amphibians included lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and debris. Birds were identified by visual and auditory recognition. Surveys for mammals were conducted during the day and included searching for and identifying diagnostic sign, including scat, footprints, scratch -outs, dust bowls, burrows, and trails. Taxonomy and nomenclature for wildlife follows the Special Animals List (CDFW 2024b) for special status species. Taxonomy and nomenclature for other species follows Crother (2017) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithological Society (AOS 2023) for birds, and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (SNMNH 2O11) for mammals. EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation Vegetation in the biological survey area is consistent with conditions described in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Vegetation throughout the majority of the biological survey area largely consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed (Acmispon glaber) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with scattered individuals of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Herbaceous species scattered throughout the disturbed sage scrub include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), red -stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.), pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), cudweed (Gnaphaltum sp.), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Ornamental vegetation such as turf grass and London plane trees (Platanus Xhispanica) occurs in the existing park. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 3 A circular access road, comprised of bare ground (no vegetative cover), various walking trails, and vehicle tracks occur in the western portion of the biological survey area. A disturbed area that appears to be used as a dirt bike track was noted in the northeastern portion of the biological survey area. Wildlife A drainage consisting of a concrete lined v-ditch and underground culvert occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area. No standing water was present at the time of the survey. Fish are not expected to occur in the biological survey area since the drainage is small and appears to only drain park run-off. If standing water occurs for extended periods of time, amphibians such as western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) may occur. One reptile species, the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), was observed during the 2023 survey. Other common species that may occur include common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri). Common bird species observed during the 2023 survey included Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and yellow -romped warbler (Setophaga coronata). Two mammals, the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), were observed in the biological survey area during the survey. Other common mammal species that may occur in the biological survey area include, but are not limited to, the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), and coyote (Canis latrans). Special Status Resources Special Status Vegetation Types CDFW provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands that are considered "Sensitive Natural Communities" based on their rarity and threat. Vegetation that occurs in the biological survey area would be consistent with the Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance and the Acmispon glaber [Lotus scoparius] Association; neither of these are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW 2023b). In some cases, coastal sage scrub habitats are commonly considered "locally sensitive" due to their ability to support listed species (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher). The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of coastal sage scrub habitat; the limited loss of this vegetation would not be considered a significant impact to this vegetation community. (See discussion of California gnatcatcher below.) Jurisdictional Areas One drainage occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area. The proposed additional project features would not impact this drainage. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 4 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have been listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. Special Status Plants Four federally and/or State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare plant species or Candidate were reported from the project region: Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 113.1), and California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 113.1). Nevin's barberry is not expected to occur because it was not observed; this species is a perennial that is observable year-round. California Orcutt grass is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. Slender -horned spineflower is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable alluvial sage scrub wash habitat. However, San Fernando Valley spineflower has potential to occur. At the time of the 2002 Final IS/MND, all the records for San Fernando spineflower were historic; the species was believed to be extirpated from the project region. However, this species was rediscovered in the project vicinity in 2011; several locations have been reported from southwest -facing slopes of coastal sage scrub in the Newhall area (CDFW 2023a). No focused plant surveys were conducted on the project site because the 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider that this species had potential to occur (EDAW 2002). A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Any loss of a State listed Endangered species would be considered regionally significant. If San Fernando Valley spineflower is present, it would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. Several California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 113' or 2B2 have been reported from the project region based on the 2023 literature review. One CRPR 1B species has potential to occur on the project site, the slender mariposa -lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). Several locations of this species occur in the project region; one California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record occurs approximately one mile northeast of the biological survey area in similar habitat (CDFW 2023a). No focused plant surveys were conducted for the 2002 Final IS/MND. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of these species in the biological survey area. This species tends to occur as scattered individuals across a hillside. Each of the additional proposed project features would impact a very small extent of habitat for this species. Therefore, it is expected that if this species occurs, the impact would be considered less than significant. However, the significance would depend on the size of the population that would be impacted in relation to the number of individuals recently reported in the project region. Special Status Wildlife Thirteen federally and/or State listed Endangered or Threatened species, or those proposed for listing, were reported from the project region in the 2023 literature review: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi; federally Threatened), quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; federally Endangered), unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni; federally Endangered, California Endangered), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus; federally Endangered, CRPR 113: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 CRPR 213: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 5 California Species of Special Concern), southern mountain yellow -legged frog (Rana muscosa, federally Endangered, California Endangered), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii, federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata, proposed federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; California Threatened), western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; federally Threatened, California Endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor, California Threatened). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. The quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur because it is believed to be extirpated from northern Los Angeles County. The unarmored threespine stickleback, arroyo toad, southern mountain yellow -legged frog, California red -legged frog, western pond turtle, western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, and tricolored blackbird are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable aquatic, riparian, or freshwater marsh habitat. The Swainson's hawk could forage over the area during migration but is not expected to occur in the project region for nesting. Of these species, only the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur in the biological survey area. Additionally, one state Candidate species also has potential to occur in the biological survey area, Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii, proposed California Endangered). These species are discussed below. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in most of Baja California, Mexico's and regions, but this subspecies is extremely localized in the United States, where it predominantly occurs in coastal regions of highly urbanized Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Atwood 1992). In California, this subspecies is a resident of coastal sage scrub vegetation types. The breeding season for the coastal California gnatcatcher ranges from late February to August. Nests are generally placed in a shrub about three feet above ground. Santa Clanta is thought to be at the northern range of the species' distribution, and it is hypothesized that there is a small but reliable breeding population in the Santa Clanta region (Cooper et. al 2017). The coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed at several locations around Santa Clanta, including multiple locations where previous protocol focused surveys determined them to be absent but more recent surveys found them to be present (CDFW 2023a). Breeding California gnatcatchers were observed in 2018 and 2019 in Santa Clarita approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site (CDFW 2023a). A protocol focused survey for coastal California gnatcatcher as conducted to support the Final IS/MND in 2001; no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during the surveys (EDAW 2002). However, given the observation of multiple coastal California gnatcatcher observations in the vicinity in recent years, and the presence of suitable coastal sage scrub habitat, the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of this species. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. The USFWS published a Revised Final Rule designating Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher in 2007 (USFWS 2007). This Revised Critical Habitat designates 197,303 acres in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The biological survey area is not located within the designated Revised Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 6 Crotch Bumble Bee Crotch bumble bee is proposed as a Candidate to be State listed as Endangered. This species was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND due to it not being special status at the time of publication. Crotch bumble bee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows; it can be found in most native habitat types, although it prefers grassland and scrub habitats. It is primarily associated with plants from the following families: Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae (Richardson 2017; Thorp et. al. 1983). A historic observation (1978) is located approximately 3.3 miles to the southeast. The nearest recent observations (2023) of Crotch bumble bee is approximately 2 miles east (iNaturalist 2024). The biological survey area would be considered potentially suitable habitat. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Any loss of habitat for a state Candidate Endangered species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of this species. If Crotch's bumble bee is present, its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. Other Considerations Wildlife Movement Landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas would be considered "wildlife corridors" if they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. The biological survey area is located in an area that is undeveloped with additional undeveloped areas to the north (across Via Joyce Drive) and south (across Plum Canyon Road), but is constrained by residential development to the east and west. Therefore, the biological survey area is located in an area that would be regarded as a wildlife corridor that could be used to access larger areas of open space along ridgelines and canyons to the northwest and south. The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement. Therefore, the additional project features' impact on wildlife movement would be considered less than significant, and no new mitigation would be needed. Nesting Birds/Raptors The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13). Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird's nest or any bird's eggs. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take and possession of any migratory nongame bird, as designated in the MBTA. Birds have potential to nest throughout the biological survey area in vegetation, on bare ground, and on adjacent structures (i.e., transmission towers). If construction would be initiated during the nesting season (generally between February I and August 31), a pre -construction survey would be required to ensure that no nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre -construction survey for nesting birds and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required. Structures adjacent to the biological survey area have potential to be used for nesting by raptors. Regulations prohibit activities that "take, possess, or destroy" any raptor nest or egg (California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, and 3513). Additionally, the noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting raptor adjacent to the proposed project. If construction would be Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 7 initiated during the raptor nesting season (generally between February I and August 31), a pre -construction survey would be required to ensure that no raptor nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre -construction survey for nesting birds, which would also include nesting raptors, and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required. Indirect Impacts Noise Impacts Noise levels would increase over present levels during construction of the additional project features. During construction, temporary noise impacts have the potential to disrupt foraging, nesting, roosting, and denning activities for a variety of wildlife species. Construction activities would likely occur during the day; thus, construction noise would not affect nocturnal species (i.e., those active at night). Diurnal species (i.e., those active during the day) would be deterred from the area during active construction. This impact would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area. Additionally, the area is already expected to have a moderate amount of noise due to the existing park and adjacent residential development. Wildlife would be expected to disperse from the immediate area during construction but would be expected to return to habitat areas following completion of construction. Therefore, the noise of constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant. Increased Dust and Urban Pollutants Grading activities would disturb soils and could result in the accumulation of dust on the surface of the leave of trees, shrubs, and herbs. The respiratory function of the plants in the area could be impaired if dust accumulation is excessive. However, the impact area is limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area; therefore, dust from constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant. Drainages in the vicinity of the project could be impacted as a result of changes in water quality. During construction, runoff carrying excessive silt or petroleum residues from construction equipment could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species using habitat adjacent to the project. The 2002 Final IS/MND (Hydrology section) states that the Project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (EDAW 2002). Assuming compliance with this permit during construction of the additional project features, impacts on water quality would be considered less than significant. Invasive Exotic Plant Species The additional project features do not include landscaping. Therefore, there would be no impact by invasive exotic plant species. Night Lighting Night lighting may impact the behavioral patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at dawn and dusk) wildlife adjacent to the night lighting. Of greatest concern is the effect on small, ground -dwelling animals that use the darkness to hide from predators and/or owls, which are specialized night forages. The additional project features include new night lighting, which would generally be limited to lighting developed portions of the park, including the existing basketball court and the future baseball field. These Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 8 areas are not expected to be used extensively by wildlife because developed and ornamental areas are generally considered low biological value to wildlife; therefore, adding night lighting in these areas would be considered less than significant. The additional project feature of stairs would also be lit, which would illuminate adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat areas adjacent to the proposed stairs. These additional light sources may negatively affect wildlife in the surrounding open space on the slope. Increased night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would be limited in extent and would therefore be considered less than significant for most wildlife species because the loss of habitat would not be expected to reduce wildlife in the region below self-sustaining levels. However, if coastal California gnatcatcher were present, the night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would incrementally impact additional habitat for this species. As discussed above, any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, indirect lighting on its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. Human Activity During construction of the additional project features, human activity is expected to increase. This could disrupt the normal foraging and breeding behavior of wildlife during construction. This impact would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area. Additionally, the area is already expected to have a moderate amount of human activity due to the existing park and adjacent residential development. Wildlife would be expected to disperse from the immediate area during construction but would be expected to return to habitat areas following completion of construction. Therefore, the human activity associated with constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant. COMPARISON TO 2002 FINAL ISIMND Since the 2002 Final IS/MND was approved, various changes have occurred that may affect the document's conclusions. For example, regulations or their interpretations may have changed (e.g., the definition of waters of the U.S. has undergone numerous revisions); and the status designation of plant or wildlife species have changed (e.g., Crotch bumble bee is now a Candidate for State listing). This section addresses whether the project would have any new impacts not previously addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Special Status Veeetation Types The 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider the disturbed sage scrub habitat to be a potentially sensitive natural community; therefore, impacts to this vegetation type were not considered significant, and no mitigation was included. The project will impact a small quantity of sage scrub habitat which would not be considered a significant impact. Conclusion: No mitigation would be required for the loss of coastal sage scrub vegetation to construct the additional project features. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 9 Jurisdictional Areas The 2002 Final IS/MND identified two narrow drainages on the project site. The additional project features would not impact any potentially jurisdictional areas. Conclusion: The additional project features would not impact any jurisdictional resources. No mitigation would be required. Special Status Plants The 2002 Final IS/MND determined that the only notable special status plant species with potential to occur on the project site was the slender -horned spineflower. Because the potential habitat for this species was being avoided (i.e. wash habitat), no focused surveys were conducted. Since the previous document was completed, the San Fernando Valley spineflower has been rediscovered in the project region. The additional project features (i.e., baseball field lights and the stairs) would impact potential habitat for this species. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the impact area for the additional project features. A focused survey would also be needed to determine the presence or absence of slender mariposa lily, and the significance of the impact if it were present in the additional project features impact area. Conclusion: A focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of San Fernando Valley spineflower and slender mariposa lily in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, San Fernando Valley spineflower would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included. If slender mariposa lily is present, a significance determination would need to be made depending on the number of individuals that would be impacted,- the species would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included if the impacts were determined to be significant. Special Status Wildlife Coastal California gnatcatcher was addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND; protocol focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher conducted in 2001 found the species to be absent. However, multiple records of breeding coastal California gnatcatchers have been observed in the project vicinity in recent years (CDFW 2023a). The focused gnatcatcher surveys conducted for the project would no longer be considered valid because of their age (23 years); these focused surveys would need to be updated to confirm absence of this species. If this species is absent, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be needed. If this species is present, the impacts would be considered potentially significant, and a new mitigation measure would be needed. Conclusion: A protocol focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of coastal California gnatcatcher in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, habitat for this species (i.e., coastal sage scrub) would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included. Crotch bumble bee is a State Candidate for listing. It was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species. If this species is absent, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be needed. If this species is present, the impacts would be considered potentially significant, and a new mitigation measure would be needed. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 10 Conclusion: A focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of Crotch bumble bee in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, this species would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included. Wildlife Movement The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement. Conclusion: No mitigation would be required for impacts to wildlife movement. Nestine Birds/Raptors The 2002 Final IS/NMD included mitigation measure M-IV.2, which requires pre -construction nesting bird surveys and protection of active nests. Conclusion: Mitigation Measure M-IV.2 from the 2002 Final IS/MND is adequate to protect nesting birds and raptors. No new mitigation would be required. Indirect Impacts The indirect impacts related to construction of the additional project features would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area. However, if coastal California gnatcatcher is determined to be present during focused surveys, the night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would incrementally impact additional habitat for this species. As discussed above, any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, indirect lighting on its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required. Conclusion: Night lighting has the potential to incrementally impact additional habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Ifpresent, night lighting of habitat for this species (i.e., coastal sage scrub) would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included. RECOMMENDATIONS Psomas recommends the following: • A focused survey for San Fernando Valley spineflower and slender mariposa lily should be conducted during the blooming period of these species to confirm the absence of these species in the impact areas for the additional project features. • An updated protocol focused survey should be conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher to confirm the absence of this species in the biological survey area. • A focused survey for Crotch bumble bee should be conducted to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 11 Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this letter report. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Amber Heredia at Amber.Heredia@psomas.com or 714.481.8049. Sincerely, PSOMAS Amber O. Heredia Senior Project Manager, Resource Management Sarah Thomas Biologist Enclosures: Exhibit 1 — Project Location Exhibit 2 — USGS 7.5-Minute Digital Quadrangle Exhibit 3 — Project Improvements Attachment A — Representative Site Photographs R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Technical Reports\David March Park-Bio Report-013024.docx Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 12 REFERENCES American Ornithological Society (AOS). 2023. Check -list of North and Middle American Birds (7d' ed., as revised through 64th Supplement). Washington, D.C.: AOU. https://checklist.amen*canomithology.org/. Atwood, J.L. 1992. Rare, Local, Little -Known, and Declining North American Breeders A Closer Look. Birding 25: 228-233. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a (January). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. 2024b (January). Special Animals. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. 2023a (accessed in December). California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. 2023b (June 2). California Natural Communities List. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (PDF). Sacramento, CA: CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Cooper, D.S, J. Mongolo, and C. Dellith. 2017. Western Birds. Western Field Ornithologists 48:124-140. Crother, B.I. (Ed.). September 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North American North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding (Edition 8). Shoreview, MN: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. https:Hssarherps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 10/8th-Ed-2017-Scientific-and-Standard-English- Names.pd£ EDAW, Inc. 2002 (January). Plum Canyon County Park Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Los Angeles, CA: EDAW, Inc. iNaturalist. 2024. Observations of Crotch's bumblebee from Los Angeles County, United States observed to date. Exported from https://www.inaturalist.org on [January 19]. Jepson Flora Project. 2024 (January 19, Revision 12). Jepson eFlora (Records for common species taxonomy). Berkeley, CA: The Jepson Herbarium. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Richardson, L. 2017. Unpublished database. Information on database and data contributors Available from: http://www.lelfrichardson.org/bbna.httnl [Accessed 22 February 2017). Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (SNMNH). 2011. Mammal Species of the World (31d ed.) (a database based on Wilson, D.E., and D. M. Reeder's 2005 publication entitled Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 31d ed.). Washington, D.C.: SNMNH. http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/ index.cfin. Julia Regan January 30, 2024 Page 13 Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr., and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: 1-79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2024 (January 22, access date). Web Soil Survey [Information for the Project Site, Survey Area Data v. 15, August 30, 2023. Lincoln, NE: USDA NRCS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. (December 19). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); Final Rule. Federal Register 72(243): 72009-72213. Washington, D.C.: USFWS. l rm - r �� %ram !° + ♦i � '^ � e0494ex � ��ai�,n • �� +q Y ,fir �"'� r�. ,� J a .0 y�py' f a •we''?rr",,',� � -r. � "''7� � 1�'.D .- .,,� _, dl" ..•A � y� ,y 'i yr � . � .. � - "w }. i�.: ►`�,r� �� 3'�` r y� r�.. .. �... ,r,".� �`-�`�"�"' �`. �, d +�'r d; Y.a R, ar .,�.� +� ��-�S✓.�+�r,�.�. _ "�` s ^ ,r°"° y�? IN to .v-�,.�'�* d if ,.r d'w- .uF , "� .tW w '" f.'.,•,r . �' r ".1Y r' �y";,°` � �. �I�"(l/w y� �M � � s'' �"^r a i y '�� '^'w .,yy { fir; ,�,J• r��" w.. �����'� y�•e' � � , y , ' b �" � ;1�'"rt aF�.. b ,w�l, � a n ►���',:�����„"."."" w�i •`�^v. �,/. / i .,, r,.y..a �, ,�r+ r. �\,. °'�,+� .F„ � �' . ^•+, ^U; ,, }, S Roiigers O A war o * . , ! �r ac iS, '4 �,." "" r '•'k'l'-:� rr ^r 1S'.'� �,.fw,'Y '&y""'_ 1?� ��a,.'y``Y. '►i """*'°?.iti a+` y � ®,ioy + r i`�'" �, / • t, �, ✓ r, fir' �.'�fr:.,` -. '�` -.., _ . -_. a 4� i+. #ate Ot �'"*•3 � '* "` i :r'��,-ram a! '; y+ 7E � l �� ".^ ry`� �l.r 4''-'kw .•p �+,"'�r ��^WGo denpV�a leYi Rdr,,,.....;rr .".�'r}•d� 0Y r Y i �, „may � ♦ �` r .+ � qa a� Y f f 040 r �.F w � V W'Y +s� a4 . dW y i .�v.. �.'+♦�f ,�. .••. +' ^ wlrw MIL i y r - + • ••ical Survey Area P s 0 n 4 �c • ' 11 a 44SI, r, 4-4 -.. 4 f � � �� y � �J� ,•n� U � � � �twt., yr' �A yr �f'( �r'��" �� 5 ,.«;,� i `��R,' _ ✓�y i t . J/� __ i a 6(.�1, � \ -�.. �'„ . 4.;. ij m r r , r y. Y N r - F l J�f g q zz- r' n r y TWA - + ROtQf \' 4 , I' o. ti - ( Ps 4I. a r• _ * , r 1 t— Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Santa Clarita Biologic M �•. Mint Canyon I Surve Area .A Township: O4N g y . �:.�T _'_j'I r '.--., - LL J ti ,l -.. Range: 155, y Section: 05, 06, 07, 08 117''.5-Minute USGS Digital Quadrangle Exhibit 2 David March Park Project N WE 0 1,000 2,000 md s Feet (P., 1-30-2024 PLO) P:\PLq.OG\1 SANLIanta\1 SAN 272300\Grzphics\Bio Report\ex_USGS.pdf O2 1 1 Os 02 5 Os 4 0 .. a Biological Survey Area Proposed Additional Project Features Proposed Stairway O Proposed Baseball Light Q Proposed Basketball Light Aerial Source: Nearm ap 2023 Project Improvements Exhibit 3 David March Park Project N "'—�— E 0 100 200 s Feet (Rev 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\P mj ecG\1 SAN-CI r,a\1 SAN272300\Grz phi cs\Bio Repo rt\ex_P inject Impmvem.,ts pdf ATTACHMENT A REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Overview of Baseball Light improvement area located in the western portion of the survey area, facing south. T NV Photo 2. Close up of Baseball Light improvement area showing scrub habitat and existing disturbance consisting of vehicle tracks, facing south. Representative Photographs David March Park Project Attachment A-1 M (0 1 /22/2024 J M C) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Re port\Attac h me n t A- 1 _202401 22. pdf. pd f Photo 3. Overview of Baseball Light 1 area, facing north. Photo 4. Overview of Baseball Light 2 area, facing north. Representative Photographs David March Park Project a Attachment A-2 (01/22/2024 JMQ RAProjects\1 SAN-Clarita\1 SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf .. .IV'• � .e � . •�'yyrfl�hr.•'. _, -- ,off y I �,• �� - Photo 5. Overview of the northeastern portion of the survey area showing a dirtbike track in the background and v-ditch drainage in the foreground, facing northeast. Photo 6. Overview of Baseball Light 3 area, facing south. Representative Photographs Attachment A-3 David March Park Project (01/22/2024 JMQ R:\Projects\1 SAN-Clarita\1 SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf Photo 7. Overview of Baseball Light 4 area, facing south. Photo 8. Overview of Baseball Light 5 area, facing northwest. Representative Photographs David March Park Project Attachment A-4 I I (Rev:01/22/2024JMC)R:\Projects\1SAN-CIarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\BioReportWttA_SP.pdf I I t Photo 9. Overview of Baseball Light 6 area, facing north. Photo 10. View of the northern portion of the Stair Location, facing southeast. Representative Photographs David March Park Project Attachment A-5 I I (Rev:01/22/2024JMC)R:\Projects\1SAN-CIarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\BioReportWttA_SP.pdf I I Photo 11. Overview of the southern portion of the Stair Location, facing southeast. Photo 12. View of Basketball Light 2, facing southeast. Representative Photographs David March Park Project Attachment A-6 M (01 /22/2024 J MC) RAProjects\1 SAN-Clarita\1 SAN 272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1 _20240122, pdf. pdf Photo 13. View of Basketball Light 1, facing northeast. Representative Photographs David March Park Project Attachment A-7 I I (Rev:01/22/2024JMC)R:\Projects\1SAN-CIarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\BioReportWttA_SP.pdf I I Appendix B Cultural Resources Memorandum Balancing the Natural and Built Environment January 30, 2024 Julia Regan VIA EMAIL Senior Project Manager jregan@santa-clarita.com Capital Improvement Projects City of Santa Clarita Subject: Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resources Research for an Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park Adopted Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Santa Clarita, California Dear Julia Regan: This Technical Memorandum (memo) summarizes the Cultural Resources Literature Review and Records Searches that was conducted for the 2023 Addendum to the 2002 Plum Canyon County Park Adopted Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (2002 IS/MND). Specifically, this memo analyzes whether the design changes would constitute a substantial change to the analysis provided in the Cultural Resources of the 2002 IS/MND, or whether the Project substantially conforms to the prior analyses prepared in the 2002 IS/MND. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT LOCATION Proiect Description The Project consists of the instillation of new outdoor lighting, comprised of six individual light fixtures, and new exercise stairs. The new stadium lights would consist of three 70-foot high power LED flood lights and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the baseball field, a 50- foot flood light twin pole mounted light fixture associated with the basketball court, and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the parking lot and walkway. METHODS The analysis contained in this memo is based on the 2002 IS/MND Cultural Resources analysis and a 2023 South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) Literature Review and Records Search. 2002 ISIMND Cultural Resources Analysis Archaeologists from EDAW, Inc (presently AECOM) conducted cultural resources investigations for the 2002 IS/MND at the SCCIC in 2000. The results from the 2000 SCCIC search identified six archaeological sites consisting of one precontact archaeological site (prior to the arrival of Europeans) and five historic -era sites (after the arrival of Europeans). None of the six 225 South Lake Avenue archaeological sites identified by EDAW were located within the 2002 IS/MND Project site. Suite 1000 Pasadena, CA 91101 Additionally, an archaeological field survey was conducted for the Project site on November Tel 626.351.2000 20, 2000. No cultural resources, including archaeological sites were identified during the field Fax 626.351.2030 survey. Therefore, the conclusion for the 2002 cultural resources study discussed in the 2002 www.Psomas.com Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024 Page 2 IS/MND is that the Project would not impact cultural resources and recommended no further archaeological studies. However, given that the 2002 project boundaries have changed to include additional impact areas, there is a need to prepare an updated analysis incorporating both the results from the 2002 EDAW study and an updated SCCIC Literature Review and Records Search. 2023 SCCIC Literature Review and Records Search Results The updated 2023 literature review and records search conducted in November 29, 2023 revealed that seven cultural resource studies have been conducted within'/2-mile of the Project site. These studies are described below in Table 1. The studies consisted primarily of archaeological surveys and field studies, and evaluations. None of the cultural resource studies occurred within the Project site. TABLE 1 CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN 1/2-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Report No. Author(s) (Year) Title An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources LA-00904 Wlodarski (1979) by the Proposed Development of Tentative Tracts: 30546, 30562, and 30599 Located in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles County, California Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the LA-01114 Toren (1976) Proposed Development of Tract No. 32615 in Valencia, California LA-02590 Rasson and Greenwood An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, a (1992) 220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon, Los Angeles County LA-03690 Wlodarski (1997) Cultural Resources Evaluation, City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR LA-04843 Allen (1999) Addendum to Cultural Resources Reassessment of the Camp Joseph Scott Project Archaeological and Paleontological Resources LA-05137 Anonymous (1999) Reassessment of the Bouquet Canyon Project, County of Los Angeles (VTT 52192, 52193, and 52194) Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the LA-12691 Simon (2010) Fire Station 128 Alternate Site, Los Angeles County, California Source: SCCIC 2023. Eight cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites) were identified within the 1/2-mile search radius of the Project, as shown in Table 2. One of the cultural resources (P-30-000295) is a precontact rock shelter. The remaining seven cultural resources include six historic -era archaeological and one historic -era built environment (structure). None of the eight cultural resources are located within the Project site. TABLE 2 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 1/2-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Primary Number Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description P-19-000295 CA-LAN-295 Riddell (1963) Precontact rock shelter P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024 Page 3 Primary Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description Number P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Rasson and LeCount Historic: refuse scatter; structural remains P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-004853 — Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains; water conveyance system; remnants of wall Source: SCCIC 2023. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAIONS Based on the cultural resources information from the 2002 IS/MND and 2023 SCCIC literature review and records search discussed above, Psomas did not identify any new cultural resources within the Project site that would be impacted from the Project. However, it is possible that during the Project disturbance, intact cultural resources may be encountered below the surface if ground disturbing activities occur within previously undisturbed soil. Impacts to such resources would be significant under CEQA. Therefore, it is recommended that the City ensure that mitigation measure M.V.1 from the 2002 IS/MND be implemented during Project construction to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered cultural resources associated with the Project to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024 Page 4 Mitigation Measure M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist. Sincerely, PSOMAS Charles Cisneros, M.S., RPA Cultural Resources Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 — SCCIC Records Search Results Exhibits: Exhibit 1 — Project Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 — Project U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 — Minute Quadrangle R:\Projects\NAJ\3NAJ010100\Techincal Reports\Paleo\Paleontological Resources Assessment-040523.docx Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024 Page 5 REFERENCES CITED EDAW, Inc. 2002. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Plum Canyon Park. Prepared for the Locs Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. . • Ty �, �:'�3ys � ,�.r,,.,. .. aI_"`_. - DWI• ,. r . .. .. 44 tom• ....�� `e .. �,v�f. ,� - Y 11 :w 4.� ,� � fie. � 1 ." �. ,.. � •"�,q,"�,�� -� � ` • � ��� � o- �,,, 5 •'s°I ��Y���j ♦ W �J ♦ � �'. a .:.'� 1 y/�% . .. �; art, C , <''i'°y�. r,'•�� � -ff �+ v„„ ''+sr �"'� /.' .ir .l, .d�•�\:ya'Y't\�,.�j'�i .;w �.'� "yT�-�;i >f t/„�,!��,+:�r XJ�T'�. .. fP r r1rj,�. r ti'b .v�f " �� .. „,.iw' .� "''L �N 1'pi�✓ rf�� V� � �• �� O ` «`',. "� •., 1 • � � ,,!' � +e, � � T � a s10"� ����,�`.a w 'j � % '�j� �'�{*`,�% =o��„w"w•a,'��• ��wa '' �'�� ''I Rodgers ��� ��'_\. `''"''�o`_.�,'��•4✓ !`�'7t� is sly � '� �'* ��'- ;'!?1 `'l%"••' jssy��a�•�,y�Y.•*; a`"� _ �m.J" `add` Y1 a1•{ T i� 9ti ' �M �✓_ ,E` { � _ �!I� eN JJ'l wim �'�. `/�tJ� ����/p 7.4iIT rir•y+. i,T��'�''.''1►+�WJ _.+ 1I-,,_•,! �..!\�.�4•�d'W 'ey+.Aja�AbOAV pr ..Gold`en,Vale _._ t,i ,�� h` a , ',.. --- X-��\�++-�iJ�3iSf1� •• ��I��'^ *-.F��•��- Sti' ^q.:� :1 rJ _ r •' � ti pig' '� `r�� � " +� �' { bw l; i� � , ,ological Survey Area P 5 0 7 � �, 1( may-, •,�, � i f� � •1� 1 r - - ! _ �df$IG�TL4�lTR..La�_ l�Cili�•yf�V1�90 <<r4 ��� I ,y r • 7^" ; f r. SS ►t=, 4j �J �_0 71,, _ f �� _.�•`d, I % I ��.N� �I%�j �1.,� v1r / �iytf1 J I 'A 4 I � t Mint Canyon F=3 Biological Survey Area Range: 15W Digital• •Exhibit David March Park Project i -•- 0 1,000 2,000 md ATTACHMENT 1 SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL INFORMATION CENTER RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS Report List Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources LA-00904 1979 Wlodarski, Robert J. An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Pence Archaeological Resources by the Proposed Development of Consulting Tentative Tracts; 30546, 30562 and 30599 Located in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles County, California LA-01114 1976 Toren, George A. Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by Northridge Archaeological 19-000295 the Proposed Development of Tract No. Research Center, CSUN 32615 in Valencia, California LA-02590 1992 Rasson, Judith and An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract Greenwood and Associates 19-002040, 19-002041, 19-002042, Roberta S. Greenwood 31803, a 220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon, 19-002043, 19-002044 Los Angeles County LA-03690 1997 Wlodarski, Robert J. Cultural Resources Evaluation City of Santa Historical, Environmental, 19-000065, 19-000951 Clarita Circulation Element Eir Archaeological, Research, Team LA-04843 1999 Allen, Kathleen C. Addendum to Cultural Resources Re- Archaeological Resource assessment of the Bouquet Canyon Project, Management Corp. County of Los Angeles (vtt 52192, 52193, and 52194) LA-05137 Paleo - 1999 Unknown Archaeological and Paleontological Applied Earth Works, Inc. Resources Assessment of the Camp Joseph Scott Project LA-12691 2010 Simon, Joseph Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological W & S Consultants 19-000295, 19-002040, 19-002041, Survey of the Fire Station 128 Alternate Site, 19-002042, 19-002043 Los Angeles County, California Page 1 of 1 SCCIC 11/29/2023 12:45:34 PM Resource List Primary No. Trinomial OtherlDs Type Age P-19-000295 CA-LAN-000295 Resource Name - Small Site rockshelter P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Resource Name - Locus 1 Site P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041 H Resource Name - Locus 2 Site P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Resource Name - Locus 3 Site P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Resource Name - Locus 4 Site P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Resource Name - Locus 5 Site P-19-004853 Resource Name - IPQ25-H-001; Site Resource Name - New Era School P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Resource Name - IPQ25-H-002 Site Page 1 of 1 Attribute codes Recorded by Reports Prehistoric AP14 1963 (RIDDELL) LA-01114, LA- 02503, LA-08555, LA-10503, LA-12691 Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount, LA-02590, LA - Greenwood & Associates) 10503, LA-12691 Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount, LA-02590, LA - Greenwood & Associates) 10503, LA-12691 Historic AH04 1992 (Judth Rasson, Lisa LeCount, LA-02590, LA - Greenwood & Associates) 10503, LA-12691 Historic AH02; AH04; AM 1 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount, LA-02590, LA - Greenwood & Associates) 10503, LA-11701, LA-12691 Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount, LA-02590, LA - Greenwood & Associates) 09037, LA-10503, LA-11701 Historic AH02 2018 (Julie Roy, HELIX) Historic AH02; AH06; AM 1 2018 (Julie Roy, HELIX) SCCIC 11/29/2023 12:46:23 PM PROPOSAL FORM Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, AS CITY: In accordance with CITY's NOTICE INVITING BIDS, the undersigned BIDDER hereby proposes to furnish all materials, equipment, tools, labor, and incidentals required for the above -stated project as set forth in the plans, specifications, and contract documents therefore, and to perform all work in the manner and time prescribed therein. BIDDER declares that this proposal is based upon careful examination of the work site, plans, specifications, INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, and all other contract documents. If this proposal is accepted for award, BIDDER agrees to enter into a contract with CITY at the unit and/or lump sum prices set forth in the following BID SCHEDULE. BIDDER understands that failure to enter into a contract in the manner and time prescribed will result in forfeiture to CITY of the proposal guarantee accompanying this proposal. BIDDER understands that a bid is required for the entire work that the estimated quantities set forth in BID SCHEDULE are solely for the purpose of comparing bids, and that final compensation under the contract will be based upon the actual quantities of work satisfactorily completed. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF ANY QUANTITY SHOWN AND TO DELETE ANY ITEM FROM THE CONTRACT. It is agreed that the unit and/or lump sum price(s) bid include all appurtenant expenses, taxes, royalties, and fees for the project's duration. In case of discrepancies in the amounts bid, unit prices shall govern overextended amounts, and words shall govern over figures. If awarded the contract, the undersigned further agrees that in the event of the Bidder's default in executing the required contract and filing the necessary bonds and insurance certificates within ten working days after the date of the CITY's notice of award of contract to the BIDDER, the proceeds of the security accompanying this bid shall become the property of the CITY and this bid and the acceptance hereof may, at the CITY's option, be considered null and void. Company Name: Urban Habitat Company Address: PO Box 1177 La Quinta, CA 92247 Phone: (760) 345-1101 Email: Brett@myurbanhabitat.com By: Brett Brennan Print Name Title: PreS' nt Signature: Date: BIRDER PRE -QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California In accordance with the California Public Contract Code Section 20101, the City of Santa Clarita will review this completed bidder's pre -qualification questionnaire immediately following bid closing, starting with the apparent low bidder. If the apparent low bidder answers in the negative OR does not meet the requirements outlined in this questionnaire, the City will find the apparent low bidder unresponsive, and will move on to the next apparent low bidder, and so and so forth. 1. In the past five years has any claim against your firm concerning your firm's work on a construction project been filed in court or arbitration? Yes ❑ No X If "yes," on separate signed sheets of paper identify the claim(s) by providing the project name, date of the claim, name of the claimant, a brief description of the nature of the claim, the court in which the case was filed and a brief description of the status of the claim (pending or, if resolved, a brief description of the resolution). 2. In the past five years has your firm made any claim against a project owner concerning work on a project or payment for a contract and filed that claim in court or arbitration? Yes ® No ❑ If "yes," on separate signed sheets of paper identify the claim by providing the project name, date of the claim, name of the entity (or entities) against whom the claim was filed, a brief description of the nature of the claim, the court in which the case was filed and a brief description of the status of the claim (pending, or if resolved, a brief description of the resolution). 3. Has CAL OSHA (or Fed/OSHA) cited and assessed penalties against your firm for any "serious," "willful" or "repeat" violations of its safety or health regulations in the past five years? NOTE: If you have filed an appeal of a citation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board has not yet rules[ on your appeal, you need not include information about it. Yes ❑ No DO If "yes," attached a separate signed page describing the citations, including information about the dates of the citations, the nature of the violation, the project on which the citation(s) was or were issued, and the amount of penalty paid, if any. if the citation was appealed to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board and a decision has been issued, state the case number and the date of the decision. 4. List your firm's Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (California workers' compensation insurance) for each of the past three premium years: NOTE: An Experience Modification Rate is issued to your firm annually by your workers' compensation insurance carrier. Current year: 0.92 Previous year: 0.97 Year prior to previous year: 1.13 If your EMR for any of these three years is or was 1.00 or higher you may, if you wish, attach a letter of explanation. 5. Indicate your firm's capacity to complete this project based on any present commitments to other projects, whether that be pre -construction, post -construction, or ongoing construction. In other words, is your firm capable of performing or complying with the required delivery or performance schedules, considering all existing commercial and governmental business commitments? Please elaborate on separate signed sheets of paper. 6. Does your firm have the adequate financial capabilities including bonding capacity (up to $10,000,OOO) to perform the contract in question, together with all other pending work, or have the ability to obtain adequate financial resources in a timely manner? Please elaborate on separate signed sheets of paper, and provide confirmation letter from Surety. 7. Does your firm have a valid California Class B or A Contractors License? Yes ® No ❑ Has your firm completed a minimum of two projects valued at $10,000,000+? Please elaborate on separate signed sheets of paper. 9. Has your firm successfully constructed a complete park or extensive park expansion? Please elaborate on separate signed sheets of paper. 10. Does your firm have insurance coverage of the following type and limits? Please see attachment • $5MM per Occurrence (General Liability or Excess) • $10MM annual General Aggregate (General Liability or Excess) • Workers' Comp (statutory limits) NOTICE TO BIDDERS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California SUMMARY OF INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. These are the Indemnity and Insurance Requirements for Contractors providing services or supplies to City of Santa Clarita (City). By agreeing to perform the work or submitting a proposal, you verify that you comply with and agree to be bound by these requirements. If any additional Contract documents are executed, the actual Indemnity language and Insurance Requirements may include additional provisions as deemed appropriate by City's Purchasing Agent. Questions and requests for modification of these terms must be negotiated and approved prior to bid submission and are at the full discretion of the City. 2. You should check with your Insurance advisors to verify compliance and determine if additional coverage or limits may be needed to adequately insure your obligations under this agreement. These are the minimum required and do not in any way represent or imply that such coverage is sufficient to adequately cover the Contractor's liability under this agreement. The full coverage and limits afforded under Contractor's policies of Insurance shall be available to Buyer and these Insurance Requirements shall not in any way act to reduce coverage that is broader or includes higher limits than those required. The Insurance obligations under this agreement shall be: 1—all the Insurance coverage and limits carried by or available to the Contractor; or 2—the minimum Insurance requirements shown in this agreement, whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits and coverage required, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to City. 3. Contractor shall furnish the Citywith original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins. City reserves the right to require full -certified copies of all Insurance coverage and endorsements. I. INDEMNIFICATION: City and its respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (individually and collectively, "Indemnitees") shall have no liability to CONTRACTOR or any other person for, and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims"), which Indemnitees may suffer or incur or to which Indemnitees may become subject by reason of or arising out of any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss, or otherwise occurring as a result of or allegedly caused by the CONTRACTOR'S performance of or failure to perform any services under this Agreement, or by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of CONTRACTOR, its agents, officers, directors, or employees, committed in performing any of the services under this Agreement. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which CONTRACTOR has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, CONTRACTOR, upon notice from City, shall defend Indemnitees at its expense by counsel acceptable to City, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitees need not have first paid for any of the matters to which Indemnitees are entitled to indemnification in order to be so indemnified. The limits of the insurance required to be maintained by CONTRACTOR in this Agreement shall not limit the liability of CONTRACTOR hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this agreement. The provisions of this section do not apply to Claims occurring as a result of the City's active negligence or acts of omission. II. INSURANCE CONTRACTOR shall maintain and submit certificates of all applicable insurance including, but not limited to, the following and as otherwise required by law. The terms of the insurance policy or policies issued to provide the above insurance coverage shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or canceled by the carrier, for non-payment of premiums or otherwise, without thirty (30) days prior written notice of amendment or cancellation to the CITY. In the event the said insurance is canceled, the CONTRACTOR shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit to the City Clerk new evidence of insurance in the amounts established. Liability Insurance During the entire term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR agrees to procure and maintain General Liability insurance at its sole expense to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, including death therefrom, suffered or alleged to be suffered by any person or persons whomsoever, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or activities, errors or omissions, of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction, and also to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages to any property of any person caused directly or indirectly by or from acts or activities of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction. Such public liability and property damage insurance shall also provide for and protect the CITY against incurring any legal cost in defending claims for alleged loss. Such General, Public and Professional liability and property damage insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement and any extension thereof in the amount indicated above or the following minimum limits: Commercial General Liability Insurance, including coverage for Premises and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, and Independent Contractors' Liability (if applicable), in an amount of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) annual aggregate, written on an occurrence form. Products/Completed Operations coverage shall extend a minimum of three (3) years after project completion. Coverage shall be included on behalf of the CONTRACTOR for covered claims arising out of the actions of independent contractors. If the CONTRACTOR is using subcontractors, the policy must include work performed "by or on behalf" of the CONTRACTOR. Policy shall contain no language that would invalidate or remove the CONTRACTOR'S duty to defend or indemnify for claims or suits expressly excluded from coverage. Policy shall specifically provide for a duty to defend on the part of the CONTRACTOR. Worker's Compensation Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, Worker's Compensation Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both the CONTRACTOR and the CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases happening to any worker employed by the CONTRACTOR in the course of carrying out the work within the Agreement. Such insurance shall also contain a waiver of subrogation naming the City of Santa Clarita. Automotive Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, throughout the term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, public liability and property damage insurance coverage for automotive equipment with coverage limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. All such insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City of Santa Ciarita as an additional insured. Builder's Risk Upon commencement of construction and with approval of CITY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain Builder's Risk Insurance for the entire duration of the Project until only the CITY has an insurable interest. The Builder's Risk coverage shall include the coverages as specified below: The named insureds shall be CONTRACTOR and CITY, including its officers, officials, employees, and agents. All subcontractors (excluding those solely responsible for design work) of any tier and suppliers shall be included as additional insureds as their interests may appear. CONTRACTOR shall not be required to maintain property insurance for any portion of the Project following transfer of control thereof to CITY. The policy shall contain a provision that all proceeds from the Builder's Risk Policy shall be made payable to the CITY. The CITY will act as a fiduciary for all other interests in the Project. Policy shall be provided for replacement value on an "all risk" basis forthe completed value of the project. There shall be no coinsurance penalty or provisional limit provision in any such policy. Policy must include: (1) coverage for any ensuing loss from faulty workmanship, nonconforming work, omission or deficiency in design or specifications; (2) coverage against machinery accidents and operational testing; (3) coverage for removal of debris, and insuring the buildings, structures, machinery, equipment, materials, facilities, fixtures and all other properties constituting a part of the Project; (4) Ordinance or law coverage for contingent rebuilding, demolition, and increased costs of construction; (5) transit coverage (unless insured by the supplier or receiving contractor), with sub -limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any key equipment item; (5) ocean marine cargo coverage insuring any Project materials or supplies, if applicable; (7) coverage with sub -limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any property or equipment stored either on or off the site or any staging area. Such insurance shall be on a form acceptable to CITY to ensure adequacy of terms and sub -limits and shall be submitted to the CITY prior to commencement of construction. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance Services involving real property only) CONTRACTOR agrees to procure and maintain, at its sole expense, during the term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, a policy of fire, extended coverage and vandalism insurance. Pollution Liabilitv and/or Asbestos Pollution Liabilitv and/or Errors & Omissions Contractors Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions with limit no less than $2,000,000 per claim or occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year. Coverage must be included for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for loss of use and/or diminution in property value, and for clean-up costs arising out of, pertaining to, or in any way related to the actual or alleged discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of contaminants or pollutants, arising out of or pertaining to the services provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, including the transportation of hazardous materials or contaminants. Professional Liability (if Design -Build) Professional Liability Insurance, insuring against professional errors and omissions arising from CONTRACTOR'S work on the Project, in an amount not less than [$2,000,000] combined single limit for each occurrence. If CONTRACTOR cannot provide an occurrence policy, CONTRACTOR shall provide insurance covering claims made as a result of performance of work on this Project and shall maintain such insurance in effect for not less than three years following final completion of the Project. Waiver of Subrogation All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONTRACTOR or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR hereby waives its own right of recovery against the CITY, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Separation of Insureds A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross -liability exclusions. Pass Through Clause CONTRACTOR agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONTRACTOR, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformitywith the requirements of this section. CONTRACTOR agreesthat upon request, all Agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to the CITY for review. Self -Insured Retentions Any self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY reserves the right to require that self -insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by the CITY. Primary and Additional Insured All of such insurance shall be primary and shall name the City of Santa Clarita as additional insured. A Certificate of Insurance and an additional insured endorsement (for general and automobile liability), evidencing the above insurance coverage with a company acceptable to the City's Purchasing Agent shall be submitted to the CITY prior to execution of this Agreement on behalf of the CITY. Requirements Should CONTRACTOR, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain coverage at CONTRACTOR'S expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or terminate. In the alternative, should CONTRACTOR fail to meet any of the insurance requirements under this Agreement, CITY may cancel the Agreement immediately with no penalty. Should CONTRACTOR'S insurance required by this Agreement be canceled at any point prior to expiration of the policy, CONTRACTOR must notify CITY within 24 hours of receipt of notice of cancelation. Furthermore, CONTRACTOR must obtain replacement coverage that meets all contractual requirements within 10 days of the prior insurer's issuance of notice of cancelation. CONTRACTOR must ensure that there is no lapse in coverage. If the operation under this Agreement results in an increased or decreased risk in the opinion of the City's Purchasing Agent, then the CONTRACTOR agrees that the minimum limits herein above designated shall be changed accordingly upon request by the City's Purchasing Agent. The CONTRACTOR agrees that provisions of this paragraph as to maintenance of insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the CONTRACTOR may be held responsible for the payment of damages to persons or property resulting from the CONTRACTOR'S activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the CONTRACTOR is otherwise responsible. have read and understand the above requirements and agree to be bound by them for any work performed for the City. Authorized Signature: Date: Printed Name; Brett Brennan, President �l�i, VRBAN 0 ® HABITAT LAMOBCAP6 GONTOACTORS Explanation/Response to Question 2 of Proposal Bid rg Pre_ Qualif cation Questionnaire -Name of Claimant — Urban Habitat -Project name — Ferrante Apartments -Date of claim, name of the entity, Court & Case number: The arbitration claim was submitted on August 29, 2022 and it is AAA Case No. 01-22-0003 -7116 The court complaint was filed July 21, 2022, and is LA Sup. Crt. Case No, 22STCV23670. Urban Habitat was terminated for convenience after the developer/owner terminated the agreement with the unions. The developer failed to compensate Urban Habitat for work completed. -Status of claim (is it still pending or if resolved the resolution) — pending arbitration (once we go to arbitration, we then close both claims) DV RBAN ® HABITAT LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS Explanation/Response to Question #f ProposaL Bidder Pre-QuaLif Ication Questionnaire Urban Habitat is structured to handle multiple projects simultaneously. Our proficiency in scheduling and resource leveling to manage projects timelines. Within the next 3 months, Urban Habitat anticipates four of our major projects to be completed. This will reallocate the resources needed if awarded to successfully undertake this project. i MVRBAN • ® HABITAT LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS Urban Habitat has adequate financial capabilities needed to perform the contract in question. Please see attached letter from Surety confirming our bonding capability per project limit up to the $15,000,000.00 and Aggregate limits of $45,000,000.00. In addition, Urban Habitat also has a line of $1,000,000.00 that are able to draw upon if needed. S01 K ' BVRBAN 13 HABITAT LANDSCAPE CONTPACTORS ton/ftsponse to QUes-tion #8 of Proposal Bidder P - Ir Urban Habitat has recently completed a project valued over $10,000,000.00 successfully, demonstrating our ability to handle large-scale and complex undertaking. Currently, we have several projects that are progressing well and should be at or near completion when this project is estimated to commence. Below are some of our high -valued projects that have been recently completed and/or are currently underway to be on track to be completed as scheduled. Central Park Buildout -100% Complete Valued at $10.6 Million South Jackson & Davis Fields Improvement-100% Complete Valued at $1.4 Million SilverRock Park-100% Complete Valued at $5.4 Million Whitaker School Park- 85% Complete Valued at $4.2 Million Dream Homes- 25% Valued at $6.9 Million Major Corridors & Rosemead Blvd Medians Parkway Beautification- 20% Valued at $10.5 Million Nicholson Neighborhood Park- 30% Valued at $9 Million Arovista Park Modernization Park- 5% Valued at $16 Million URBAN ° ®HABITAT LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS x /R t' Pre -Qualification Questionnaire Urban Habitat has completed an extensive park expansion project, Central Park Buildout in the city of Santa CLarita, California. This project included the construction of a new park restroom, basketball court, exercise stairs, parking lot, soccer fields, electrical work, and walking paths/trails. This project encompassed the work and coordination of over two dozen subcontractors. Urban Habitat is also in the process of completing 4 other park expansion/modernization projects throughout the Southern California. These include the installation of new restrooms, sports fields, basketball/pickleball courts, concessions stands, concrete flat work, retaining walls and electrical work. The work on these projects utilizes the coordination of dozens of subcontractors and others directly hired by the Cities. — M�W-AIMMF me" ' ' ' r URBAN ® HABITAT LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ExpLanation/Response to Question #10 of Proposal. Bidder Pre-QuatificationQuestionnaire Urban Habitat has Commercial General Liability and Commercial Liability Umbrella policies that meet the requirements as per the Notice to Bidders Regarding Contractual Requirements on Section II. Insurance. Urban Habitat is able to increase our limits should it be required. Developers S rr rety a n c I (,i can ri l tv Co m p a �� ti� An Affiliate of AmTrust Surety 17771 Cowan Street, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 April 19, 2024 Urban Habitat PO Box 1177 La Quinta, CA 92247 RE: Surety Prequalification Letter — Urban Habitat To Whom It May Concern: This letter confirms the bondability and serves as a letter of recommendation for Urban Habitat a client we have the pleasure of providing bonding for since 2023. Urban Habitat has demonstrated an excellent track record for satisfied customers, timely and complete projects and quality craftsmanship all with no losses or claims. It is our distinct pleasure to represent their company's bonding needs. After a complete and careful review of their file we are pleased to confirm the following bonding range of Surety credit with us: l) A single, per project limit up to the $15,000,000.00 range. 2) An Aggregate (maximum work on hand) limit up to the $45,000,000;00 range. Developers Surety and Indemnity Company (DSIC) is an A.M. Best A-XV Treasury Listed California Insurance Carrier and California Admitted Surety. DSIC is an underwriting company wholly owned by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. (AFSI), a global insurance carrier. DSIC is listed with the US. Department of Treasury as a certified surety company capable of providing sizeable bonds on federal projects. All bond requests are subject to our underwriting guidelines, at the time of the request, which will include but not limited to the acceptability of the contract documents, terms and conditions, bond forms and project financing. We assume no liability to third parties or to you by issuance of this letter or if, for any reason, we do not approve/execute said bond(s). It has been a pleasure dealing with Urban Habitat thus far and we look forward to representing their bonding needs for the future. Sincerely, lyw)f zr� Matt Gaynor Attorney -In -Fact FAi AmTrust Surety An AmTrust Financial Company POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 59 Maiden Lane, 43rd Floor, New York, NY I N)38 (212)220-7120 KNOW ALL BYTHESE PRESENTS that, except as expressly limited herein, COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, do hereby make, constitute and appoint. Matt Gaynor, Anne Wright and And Roberts _ * of San Diego, CA _ � y as its true and lawful Attorney, to make, execute, deliver and acknowledge, for and on behalf of said companies, as sureties, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship giving and granting unto said Attorney -in -Fact full power and authority to do and to perform every act necessary, requisite or proper to be done in connection therewith as each of said company could do, but reserving to each of said company full power of substitution and revocation, and all of the acts ofsaid Attorney -in -Fact, pursuant to these presents are hereby ratified and confirmed This Power of Attorney is effective April 19, 2024 and shall expire on December 31, 2025, This Power of Attonyey is granted and is signed under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY (ecllectively, "Company") on November 3, 2022. RESOLVED, that Sam Zaza, Senior Vice President_ Surety Underwriting, James ReVice. President Surety IInden_ vriti is ..,and Clang Daw n,. E_xecutive_I friderwriter, Sgro. each an employee of Aaf must North America, Inc., an affiliate of the Company (the "Authorized Signers"),are hereby authorized to execute a Power of Attorney,, qualifying attorney lsj in -fact named in the Power of Attorney to execute, on behalf of the Company, bonds, undenaktngs and contracts of suretyship, or other suretyship obligations; and that the Secretary or and Assistant Secretan of the Company be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to attest the execution of any such Power of Attorney. RESOLVED, that the signature of any one of the Authorized Signors and the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the Company, and the seal of the Compay must be affixed to any such Power of Attorney, and any such signature or seal may be affixed by facsimile, and such Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding upon the Company when. so affixed and to the future with respect to any bond, undertaking or contract of suretyship to which it is attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY have caused these presents to be signed by the Authorized Signor and attested by their Secretar or Assistant Secretary this December 5, 2022 SY Printed Nome, gam Zan 1•itic Senior Vice President, Surety STATE OF California COUNTY OF orange "eaaetrense°°° C' •, •' '� pkPO : 0: :o= ix ,,,,0°°all * tt�N,`•,• On this of . 20 ..46efore me, personally appeared Sam Zaza who proved to the on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by the signature on the instrument the entities upon behalf which the person acted, executed this instrument. 1 certify, under pedalq of Penury, under the laws of tire State of Ca' ifwma that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct WITNESS my hand and official seat s" ewhabAW g1ANE J. NAWAFA Notary Public - Cailfomla L } _ Orange County Commission A 228427 Signature My Comttt, Expires Apr 28, 2023 CORPORATE CERTIFICATION The undersigned, the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of COREPOINTE INSURANCES COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, does hereby certify that the provisions of the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of said corporations set R111h in this Power f Attorney are in force as of the date of this Certification. This Certification is executed in the City of Cleveland. Ohm, this 22 day of November. 2022. --DocuSigne))d4�V , Lf68"IMADE548C " 1N. M.MSt,S By, Barry W Moses Assistant Secretary POA No. Ed 1122 NOTICE TO BIDDERS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL. REQUIREMENTS Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase it Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California SUMMARY OF INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. These are the Indemnity and insurance Requirements for Contractors providing services or supplies to City of Santa Clarita (City). By agreeing to perform the work or submitting a proposal, you verify that you comply with and agree to be bound by these requirements. If any additional Contract documents are executed, the actual Indemnity language and Insurance Requirements may include additional provisions as deemed appropriate by City's Purchasing Agent. Questions and requests for modification of these terms must be negotiated and approved prior to bid submission and are at the full discretion of the City. 2. You should check with your insurance advisors to verify compliance and determine if additional coverage or limits may be needed to adequately insure your obligations under this agreement. These are the minimum required and do not in any way represent or imply that such coverage is sufficient to adequately cover the Contractor's liability under this agreement. The full coverage and limits afforded under Contractor's policies of Insurance shall be available to Buyer and these Insurance Requirements shall not in any way act to reduce coverage that is broader or includes higher limits than those required. The Insurance obligations under this agreement shall be: 1—all the Insurance coverage and limits carried by or available. to the Contractor; or 2—the minimum Insurance requirements shown in this agreement, whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits and coverage required, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to City. 3. Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of insurance including all required amendatory endorsements and a copy of the declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins. City reserves the right to require full -certified copies of all Insurance coverage and endorsements. 1. INDEMNIFICATION: City and its respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (individually and collectively, "Indemnitees") shall have no liability to CONTRACTOR or any other person for, and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements (collectively, "Claims"), which Indemnitees may suffer or incur or to which Indemnitees may become subject by reason of or arising out of any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss, or otherwise occurring as a result of or allegedly caused by the CONTRACTOR'S performance of or failure to perform any services under this Agreement, or by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of CONTRACTOR, its agents, officers, directors, or employees, committed in performing any of the services under this Agreement. If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which CONTRACTOR has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, CONTRACTOR, upon notice from City, shall defend Indemnitees at its expense by counsel acceptable to City, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. Indemnitees need not have first paid for any of the matters to which Indemnitees are entitled to indemnification in order to be so indemnified. The limits of the insurance required to be maintained by CONTRACTOR in this Agreement shall not limit the liability of CONTRACTOR hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this agreement. The provisions of this section do not apply to Claims occurring as a result of the City's active negligence or acts of omission. II. INSURANCE CONTRACTOR shall maintain and submit certificates of all applicable insurance including, but not limited to, the following and as otherwise required by law. The terms of the insurance policy or policies issued to provide the above insurance coverage shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or canceled by the carrier, for non-payment of premiums or otherwise, without thirty (30) days prior written notice of amendment or cancellation to the CITY. In the event the said insurance is canceled, the CONTRACTOR shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit to the City Clerk new evidence of insurance in the amounts established. Liability Insurance During the entire term of this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR agrees to procure and maintain General Liability insurance at its sole expense to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, including death therefrom, suffered or alleged to be suffered by any person or persons whomsoever, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or activities, errors or omissions, of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction, and also to protect against loss from liability imposed by law for damages to any property of any person caused directly or indirectly by or from acts or activities of the CITY, or CONTRACTOR or any person acting for the CITY, or under its control or direction. Such public liability and property damage insurance shall also provide for and protect the CITY against incurring any legal cost in defending claims for alleged loss. Such General, Public and Professional liability and property damage insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement and any extension thereof in the amount indicated above or the following minimum limits: Commercial General Liability Insurance, including coverage for Premises and Operations, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury Liability, Products/Completed Operations Liability, and Independent Contractors' Liability (if applicable), in an amount of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) annual aggregate, written on an occurrence form. Products/Completed Operations coverage shall extend a minimum of three (3) years after project completion. Coverage shall be included on behalf of the CONTRACTOR for covered claims arising out of the actions of independent contractors. If the CONTRACTOR is using subcontractors, the policy must include work performed "by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR. Policy shall contain no language that would invalidate or remove the CONTRACTOR'S duty to defend or indemnify for claims or suits expressly excluded from coverage. Policy shall specifically provide for a duty to defend on the part of the CONTRACTOR. Worker's Compensation Insurance The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, Worker's Compensation Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence or in such amount as will fully comply with the laws of the State of California and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defense for both the CONTRACTOR and the CITY against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational diseases happening to any worker employed by the CONTRACTOR in the course of carrying out the work within the Agreement. Such insurance shall also contain a waiver of subrogation naming the City of Santa Clarita. Automotive Insurance i The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain, at its sole expense, throughout the term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, public liability and property damage insurance coverage for automotive equipment with coverage limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident. All such insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name the City of Santa Clarita as an additional insured. Builder's Risk Upon commencement of construction and with approval of CITY, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain Builder's Risk Insurance for the entire duration of the Project until only the CITY has an insurable interest. The Builder's Risk coverage shall include the coverages as specified below: The named insureds shall be CONTRACTOR and CITY, including its officers, officials, employees, and agents. All subcontractors (excluding those solely responsible for design work) of any tier and suppliers shall be included as additional insureds as their interests may appear. CONTRACTOR shall not be required to maintain property insurance for any portion of the Project following transfer of control thereof to CITY. The policy shall contain a provision that all proceeds from the Builder's Risk Policy shall be made payable to the CITY. The CITY will act as a fiduciary for all other interests in the Project. Policy shall be provided for replacement value on an "all risk" basis for the completed value of the project. There shall be no coinsurance penalty or provisional limit provision in any such policy. Policy must include. (1) coverage for any ensuing loss from faulty workmanship, nonconforming work, omission or deficiency in design or specifications; (2) coverage against machinery accidents and operational testing; (3) coverage for removal of debris, and insuring the buildings, structures, machinery, equipment, materials, facilities, fixtures and all other properties constituting a part of the Project; (4) Ordinance or law coverage for contingent rebuilding, demolition, and increased costs of construction; (5) transit coverage (unless insured by the supplier or receiving contractor), with sub -limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any key equipment item; (b) ocean marine cargo coverage insuring any Project materials or supplies, if applicable; (7) coverage with sub -limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any property or equipment stored either on or off the site or any staging area. Such insurance shall be on a form acceptable to CITY to ensure adequacy of terms and sub -limits and shall be submitted to the CITY prior to commencement of construction. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance (Services involving real property oniv) CONTRACTOR agrees to procure and maintain, at its sole expense, during the term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, a policy of fire, extended coverage and vandalism insurance. Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions Contractors Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions with limit no less than $2,000,000 per claim or occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year. Coverage must be included for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for loss of use and/or diminution in property value, and for clean-up costs arising out of, pertaining to, or in any way related to the actual or alleged discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of contaminants or pollutants, arising out of or pertaining to the services provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, including the transportation of hazardous materials or contaminants. Professional Liability (if Design -Build) Professional Liability Insurance, insuring against professional errors and omissions arising from CONTRACTOR'S work on the Project, in an amount not less than [$2,000,000] combined single limit for each occurrence. If CONTRACTOR cannot provide an occurrence policy, CONTRACTOR shall provide insurance covering claims made as a result of performance of work on this Project and shall maintain such insurance in effect for not less than three years following final completion of the Project. Waiver of Subrogation All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONTRACTOR or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR hereby waives its own right of recovery against the CITY, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Separation of Insureds A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that CONTRACTOR'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer's limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross -liability exclusions. Pass Through Clause CONTRACTOR agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONTRACTOR, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. CONTRACTOR agrees that upon request, all Agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to the CITY for review. Self -Insured Retentions Any self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY reserves the right to require that self -insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by the CITY. Primary and Additional Insured All of such insurance shall be primary and shall name the City of Santa Clarita as additional insured. A Certificate of Insurance and an additional insured endorsement (for general and automobile liability), evidencing the above insurance coverage with a company acceptable to the City's Purchasing Agent shall be submitted to the CITY prior to execution of this Agreement on behalf of the CITY. Requirements Should CONTRACTOR, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain coverage at CONTRACTOR'S expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement or terminate. In the alternative, should CONTRACTOR fail to meet any of the insurance requirements under this Agreement, CITY may cancel the Agreement immediately with no penalty. Should CONTRACTOR'S insurance required by this Agreement be canceled at any point prior to expiration of the policy, CONTRACTOR must notify CITY within 24 hours of receipt of notice of cancelation. Furthermore, CONTRACTOR must obtain replacement coverage that meets all contractual requirements within 10 days of the prior insurer's issuance of notice of cancelation. CONTRACTOR must ensure that there is no lapse in coverage. If the operation under this Agreement results in an increased or decreased risk in the opinion of the City's Purchasing Agent, then the CONTRACTOR agrees that the minimum limits herein above designated shall be changed accordingly upon request by the City's Purchasing Agent. The CONTRACTOR agrees that provisions of this paragraph as to maintenance of insurance shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the CONTRACTOR may be held responsible for the payment of damages to persons or property resulting from the CONTRACTOR'S activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the CONTRACTOR is otherwise responsible., I have read and understand the above requirements and agree to be bound by them for any work performed for the City. , Ll Authorized Signature: Date: May 23, 2024 Brett Brennan Printed Name: BID SCHEDULE Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A City Project No. P4027 David March Park Phase II Improvements City of Santa Clarita, California Fill out this form completely and submit with the bid response. Line item pricing must be entered on BidNet. In the event any mathematical discrepancies are found, please refer to Section B, Bid Instructions. The award of contract, if made, will be to the lowest responsive BIDDER determined solely by the AGENCY. The AGENCY also reserves the right to add/delete the quantities to the existing bid items, or delete the entire bid item if they are found not required by the Agency during the course of the construction, or add new bid items or scope of work by Contract Change Order at any time during the project up to the last contract working day. The BIDDER agrees to hold all unit prices in this Bid Schedule constant throughout the duration of the project up to the last contract working day. ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL NO. 1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $485.576-64 $485.576.64 2 FIELD OFFICE 1 LS $113-210-03 `� $113-i10-03 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, 3 IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 1 LS $64-989-92 $64.989.92 BM PS 4 CONSTRUCTION FENCING 1 LS $20.605.19 $20.605.19 TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRAFFIC HANDLING, & 5. CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE 1 LS $14.-231.84 $14.231.84 6 CONSTRUCTION STAKING 1 LS $70.910-40 $70-910-40 7. RESTROOM BUILDING 1 LS $851.345-17 $851-345-17 PRE-ENGINEERED PICNIC PAVILLION 8. STRUCTURE 1 LS $1387966.18 $138966-18 9 TRASH ENCLOSURE 1 LS $140,504-49 $140.1504.49 EXISTING RESTROOM BUILDING —PAINT 10. ROOF 1 LS $8;036-51 $8.036.51 EXISTING RESTROOM BUILDING —PAINT 11. EXTERIOR WALLS 1 LS $12,882-06 $12882-06 12 CLEARING, GRUBBING AND REMOVALS 4.8 AC $15.475.81 $74,283-89 13. ROUGH GRADING 16,000 CY $18.64 $298;240-00 14. FINISHED GRADING 77,760 SF $0.92 $-1.539.20 15. IMPORTED CLASS W TOPSOIL 1,400 CY $63.41 $88.774.00 16. TREE REMOVAL (6"-12" DIAMETER) 10 EA $2.261.85 $22.618.50 17 OMITTED 18 REMOVE SIGN 1 EA $358.50 $358.50 19 REMOVE CHAINLINK FENCE 200 LF $14.32 $2.864.00 20 REMOVE AC PAVEMENT 2,820 SF $4.80 $13,536.00 21 SAWCUT AC PAVEMENT 108 LF $5.00 $540.00 22 SAWCUT CONCRETE 4 LF $6.65 $26.60 23 REMOVE 6" CURB 78 LF $16.91 $17318.98 24 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER 70 LF $18.93 $1.325.10 25 REMOVE PCC PADS BELOW PICNIC TABLES 450 SF $3.88 $1.746.00 26 REMOVE PCC WALK, 4" THICK 80 SF $3.88 $310.40 REMOVE CONCRETE LONGITUDINAL 27• GUTTER 60 SF $12.23 28 REMOVE PCC WALK AND & DRIVEWAY 178 SF $3.88 $690.64 29 REMOVE CURB RAMP 1 EA $ 176.76 $776.1-6 30. REMOVE GRILL & SALVAGE PICNIC TABLE 4 EA $352.84 $1.411.36 31. REMOVE BOLLARDS & ENTRY GATE 1 LS $255.34 $255.34 32 REMOVE HORSESHOE PITS 2 EA $220.80 $441.60 33. REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE 40 LF $14.31 $572.40 34. REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1 EA $572.5-2 $5-2.52 35. REMOVE FITNESS AREA 1 LS $3.185.60 $3.185.60 REMOVE RED PAINT FROM CURB 36. (OFFSITE) 60 LF $20.18 $1.210.80 37 CONCRETE PAVING PEDESTRIAN, 4" THICK 27,252 SF $8.01 $218,288.52 CONCRETE PAVING PEDESTRIAN RAMPS, 38• 4" THICK 2,300 SF $15.03 $347569.00 39 CONCRETE PAD - PICNIC PAVILLION 960 SF $13.2 7 $1� ` 73 `' � �9_t0 40. CONCRETE PAD - TRASH ENCLOSURE 364 SF $3 7.43 $13.624.52 41. CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH, 6.5" THICK 235 SF $12.21 $2.869.35 CONCRETE PADS FOR EV CHARGING 42• STATION 36 SF $23.12 $832.32 43. CONCRETE FLUSH HEADER CURB 1,002 LF -,- $t _96 $28.015.92 CONCRETE BASKETBALL COURT 44. (REINFORCED) 4,200 SF $11.83 $49.686.00 45. CONCRETE STAIRS 340 SF $61.40 $20.876.00 46. CONCRETE ART SCULPTURE FOUNDATION 3 EA $12.977.00 $38.931.aa 47 CURB RAMPS 3 EA $1.754.34 $5.263.02 CONCRETE CURBS, SPPWC 120-2, TYPE A1- 48. 6 750 LF $23.67 $17.752.50 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, SPPWC 120-2, 49. TYPE A2-6 414 LF $36.16 $14970.24 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, SPPWC 120-2, 50. TYPE 132-6 86 LF $36.16 $3.109.76 LONGITUDINAL GUTTER, SPPWC 122-3, 51. W=3' 230 SF $40.02 $9,204.60 52 CONCRETE TERRACED SEATING 215 LF $109.31 $23.501.65 53. POURED IN PLACE SURFACING PATCH 1 LS $5.908.02 $5.908.02 54. PCC PAVEMENT, 6.5" THICK 1,318 SF $10.11 $13.324.98 55. AC PAVEMENT (TYPE B) - 4" 687 TON $199.73 $137.214.51 56. ASPHALT PAVING CMB BASE - 8" 27,684 SF $2.36 $65.3 34.24 57 TRENCH RESURFACING - CMB 197 SF $5.91 $1.164.27 58 TRENCH RESURFACING - AC PAVEMENT 197 SF $11.82 $2.328.54 59 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 85 SF $49.33 $4.193.05 60. STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE 2,349 SF $5.3' $12.614.13 CLAY DUST INFIELD MIX (INCLUDING 61. PITCHING MOUND) 21,867 SF $2.34 $51.168.78 MULTI -USE TRAIL & MAINTENANCE PATH 62• (COMPACTED SOIL) 15,038 SF $0.59 $87872.42 SANTA CARITA STANDARD PARK ENTRY 63. MONUMENT SIGN, SINGLE SIDED 1 EA $19.036.33 $19,036.33 SANTA CARITA STANDARD PARK ENTRY 64. MONUMENT SIGN, DOUBLE SIDED 1 EA $20.591.51 $207591.51 65. PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN 5 EA $1.654.58 $8.272.90 66. SKATE STOPPERS 140 EA $47.84 $6.697.60 67 LANDCAPE BOULDERS 42 TON $589.54 $24.760.68 68 STANDARD CONCRETE PICNIC TABLES 8 EA $2.540.60 $20.324.80 69 BIKE RACK 4 EA $1.551.33 $6.205.32 70 TRASH RECEPTACLES 7 EA $2.476.21 $17.333.47 BIG BELLY TRASH/RECYCLING RECEPTACLE 71 (OWNER FURSHISHED, CONTRACTOR 1 EA $1.142.30 $1.142.30 INSTALLED) 72 ACCESSIBILE OUTDOOR GRILL 1 EA $1,464.71 $1.464.71 73 CORN HOLE 4 EA $3.389.56 $13.558.24 74 HORSESHOE PIT 2 EA $3.241.37 $6.482.74 75 BASES (4 SETS OF 3) 4 EA $1.021.51 $4.086.04 76 HOME PLATE 2 EA $467.40 $934.80 BASKETBALL COURT SPORT COURT 77• SURFACING & STRIPING (SPORTMASTER) 4,200 SF $4.92 $20,664.00 78 BASKETBALL SYSTEM 4 EA $10.412.44 $41.649.76 79 DUGOUT BENCH 2 EA $2.441.40 $4.882.80 80 STANDARD CONCRETE BENCH 3 EA $1.950.66 $5.851.98 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: PENDULUM, ABS & 81. DIPS STATION 1 EA $9.673.42 $9.1673.42 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: BACK & ARMS 82. COMBO 1 EA $10,610.06 $10.610.06 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: ACCESSIBLE CHEST 83. PRESS 1 EA $11.770.63 $11.770.63 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: COMBO LAT PULL & 84. VERTICAL PRESS 1 EA $10.526.21 $10.526.21 85 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: STATIC COMBO 1 EA $9,883.04 $9;883.04 86 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: ROWING MACHINE 1 EA $7.953.53 $7.953.53 87 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: LEG PRESS 1 EA $12.840.19 $12.840.19 88 FITNESS AREA SIGN 1 EA $3.720.10 $3.720.10 FITNESS EQUIPMENT: ELLIPTICAL CROSS 89. TRAINER 1 EA $9.072.17 $97072.17 BRONZE DEDICATION PLAQUE ON STONE 90. COLUMN 1 LS $19.380.43 $19,380.43 91 6' CHAIN LINK OUTFIELD FENCE 493 LF $1o7.a1 $52.755.s3 92 10' CHAIN LINK BACKSTOP FENCE 489 LF ���_ $zip 93 -+7 $1a9.a1�_7 93 OUTFIELD FENCE CAP 493 LF ,_- $_ 1 �_ s_ $i 81_ 03 10' HIGH DUGOUT CHAIN LINK FENCE - 94. DEFERRED SUBMITTAL 100 LF $247.48 $24,748.00 48' LENGTH 24" TALL WOODEN BACKSTOP 95. BALLSTOP 1 LS $19.470.81 $19.4-0.81 96 FOUL BALL POLE - DEFERRED SUBMITTAL 2 EA $18.696.71 $37.393.42 FOUL BALL NETTING & FENCE SYSTEM - 97. DEFERRED SUBMITTAL 1 EA $21 7.564.93 $217.564.93 98 15" HIGH CONCRETE SEATWALL 150 LF $146.79 $22_018.50 99 OMITTED 100. 24" HIGH CONCRETE SEATWALL 30 LF $154.65 $4.639.50 101. HANDRAILS 780 LF $133.55 $104,169.00 102. LODGEPOLE FENCE 163 LF $178.00 $29_014.00 LODGEPOLE FENCE WITH WIRE MESH 103. BACKING 410 LF $141.10 $57,851.00 104. TREE PROTECTION FENCING 2858 LF $19.03 $54.387.74 EXISTING POC ADJUSTMENTS - BACKFLOW 105. & PUMP STATION 1 LS $4.118.71 $4,118.71 DEMOLITION AND MODIFICATION OF 106. EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 LS $16.723.04 $16.723.04 107. NEW CONTROLLER AND ENCLOSURE 1 EA $35,484.75 $35,484.75 108. MASTER VALVE 1 EA $9.005.62 $9.005.62 109. FLOW SENSOR 1 EA $6.299.21 $6.299.21 110. CONTROLLER WIRE 37,075 LF $1.06 $719.299.50 111. 3" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 1 EA $2.558.68 $2.558.68 112. 2" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 22 EA $484.55 $10.660.10 113. 1 1/2" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 6 EA $431.37 $2.588.22 114. 1 1/4" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 6 EA $40 7.73 $2.446.38 115. 1" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 18 EA $295.46 $5.318.28 116. LOW FLOW CONTROL VALVE 18 EA 27 $� P 1.82 $4.89� 12.7 6 117. GATE VALVE 12 EA $1.075.47 $12.905.64 118. INLINE SPRING CHECK VALVE 34 EA $70_91 $2.410.94 119. QUICK COUPLER 18 EA $26,_91 $4.786.38 120. PULL BOX 2 EA $�4z 2 2�_� 8 $484.56 121. 3" MAINLINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 2,897 LF $21.27 $61.619.19 122 3" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 3 LF $112.27 $336.81 123. 2 1/2" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 212 LF $24.82 $5.261.84 124. 2" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 837 LF $18.91 $15.827.67 125. 1 1/2" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 815 LF $18.91 $15.411.65 126. 1 1/4" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 1,058 LF $14.77 $15.626.66 127 1" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 2,271 LF $14.I I $ 542.67 128 3/4" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 11,963 LF $10.64 $127.286.32 129 3" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40-UVR) 2 LF $20.09 $40.18 2 1/2" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40- 130. UVR) 40 LF $16.55 $662.00 131. 2" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40-UVR) 71 LF $14.18 $1.006.78 1 1/2" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40- 132. UVR) 18 LF $7.09 $127.62 1 1/4" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40- 133. UVR) 104 LF $5.91 $614.64 134. 1" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40-UVR) 143 LF $4.73 $676.39 3/4" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40- 135. UVR) 1,052 LF $3.55 $3,734.60 CLASS 315 PIPE/WIRE SLEEVE- SIZE PER 136. PLAN 1,250 LF $27.18 $33.975.00 137. POP-UP ROTORS 82 EA $153.64 $12.598.48 138. POP-UP SPRAY 137 EA $330.17 $45.233.29 139. SHRUB BUBBLER ON RISER 1,196 EA $10.64 $12.725.44 140. TREE BUBBLER ON RISER 171 EA $10.64 $1.819.44 ROOT WATERING SYSTEM- NEW TREES IN 141. TURF ONLY 34 EA $70.91 $2.410.94 SPECTATOR AREA 3-SIDED CANTILEVERED 142. SHADE SAILS 1 LS $218,469.98 $218,469.98 143. DUGOUT CANTILEVERED SHADE SAILS 1 LS $141.710.66 $141.710.66 144. PLAYGROUND SHADE SAILS 1 LS $237.967.98 $237.967.98 145. FITNESS ZONE SHADE SAILS 1 LS $173.300.06 $173.3,00.06 GROUNDING RODS, 10' LONG x 3/4 146. DIAMETER 6 EA $445.36 $2:672.16 TRENCH/ GROUNDING COPPER WIRES IN 147. PVC CONDUIT 300 LF $40.55 $12.165.00 148. PULL BOX 17"x11"x12"D 6 EA $851.12 $5.106.72 3-4" CONDUITS, SCH 40 PVC AND COPPER 149. WIRE 340 LF $943.85 $320,909.00 150. ENCASED CONDUIT AT STREET CROSSING 60 LF $377.72 $22.663.20 2-1" CONDUITS, SCH 40 PVC AND COPPER 151. WIRE 500 LF $50.09 $25,045.00 3/411, 1 1/4", 2" CONDUITS, SCH 40 PVC 152. AND COPPER WIRE - PARK AREA 4,965 LF $38.54 $191,351.10 3" CONDUITS, SCH 40 PVC AND #14 153. TRACER WIRE - COMMUNICATIONS 930 LF $108.15 $100,579.50 154. RECEPTACLE DUPLEX, 120V GFCI 10 EA $363.42 $3.634.20 NEW 100 AMP MASTER CONTROL PANEL, 155. OUTDOOR NEMA 3R 60"x30"X12D, 1 LS $13.932.71 $13.932.71 METER, MULTI -POLE CONTRACTORS 156. NEW CONTROL PANEL 2 EA $5.3 36.01 $10.672.02 MUSCO FIELD 70' POLE LIGHTS - ON POLE 157. WITH PHOTO CONTROL 6 EA $26:866.77 $161,200.62 MUSCO COURT POLE LIGHTS - ON 50' POLE 158. WITH PHOTO CONTROL 2 EA $89:591.74 $179.183.48 MUSCO FIELD POLE LIGHTS CONTROL 159. SYSTEM 1 EA $86,131.32 $86.13,1.32 PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTS - 1 LED FIXTURE 160. ON 14' POLE WITH PHOTO CONTROL 5 EA $8,415.88 $42,079.40 PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHTS - 2 LED FIXTURE 161. ON 14' POLE WITH PHOTO CONTROL 3 EA $8.825.98 $26147 7.94 PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS - 1 LED 162. FIXTURE ON 20' POLE WITH PHOTO 17 EA $9.736.00 $165.512.00 CONTROL W/ RAISED BASE PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS - 2 LED 163. FIXTURE ON 20' POLE WITH PHOTO 3 EA $10.070.46 $30.211.38 CONTROL W/ RAISED BASE 164. SIGN UPLIGHTS 4 EA $4.515.81 $18.063.24 165. ART UPLIGHTS 3 EA $809.56 $2.428.68 EVCS CHARGING STATIONS (CONDUIT AND 166. POWER STATION INSTALLATION) 4 EA $14.923.09 $59.692_36 FUTURE EVCS CHARGING STATION 167. (CONDUIT AND PULLBOX) 12 EA $10.117.73 $121.412_76 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CEILING 168. LIGHTING 26 EA $590.19 $15,344.94 169. EXTERIOR WALL LIGHTING 8 EA $893.47 $7.147.76 170. 600A PANEL BOARD 1 EA $17.675.60 $17.675.60 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING 171. (METERS/ DISCONNECT SWITCHES) 4 EA $1:123.93 $4,495.72 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING (LTG 172• CONTROL RELAY PANEL - PB1 -24) 1 EA $12:643.32 $12,643.32 ROOT BARRIER (10' PER TREE WITHIN 5' 173. OF PAVEMENT) 240 LF $47.27 $11,344.80 PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION & 174. AMENDMENTS (SHRUBS & HYDROSEED) 82,078 SF $0.47 $38.576.66 PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION & 175. AMENDMENTS (SPORTS FIELD TURF & REC 82,566 SF $0.65 $537667.90 TURF) 176. 3" DEPTH OF ORGANIC MULCH 712 CY $82.73 p $58.903. %6 177 PLANTING AREA FINE GRADING 164,644 SF $0.18 $29.635.92 LASER GRADING (SPORTS FIELD TURF & 178. INFIELD) 71,505 SF $0.65 $46,478.25 179 JUTE NETTING 28,831 SF $0.59 $17.010.29 180. PROPOSED 1 GAL. SHRUBS 2,319 EA $13.00 $30,147.00 181. PROPOSED 5 GAL. SHRUBS 1,394 EA $29.55 $41.192.70 182 PROPOSED 15 GAL. SHRUBS 32 EA $248.19 $7.942.08 183. TREES - 24" BOX 104 EA $466.8 $48.550.32 184. TREES - 36" BOX 8 EA $986.84 $7.894.72 185. TREES - 48" BOX 1 EA $2.659.14 $2.659.14 186. SPORTS TURF (SOD) 49,638 SF $1.12 $557594.56 187 RECREATIONAL TURF (SOD) 32,928 SF $1.36 $44,782.08 188 OVERSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX 89,425 SF $0.12 $10,731.00 189 HYDROSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX 5,185 SF $0.25 $1.296.25 FIRST 90 DAYS OF PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, 190. MAINTENANCE PERIOD 164,644 SF $0.24 $39.514.56 SECOND 90 DAYS OF PLANT 191. ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE PERIOD 164,644 SF $0.24 $39.514.56 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER SERVICE LINE 192• ASSEMBLY, MUNICIPEX 36.5 LF $124.68 $4,1550.82 193. 2" DOMESTIC WATER LINE, PVC 221 LF $47.71 $10.543.91 194. BACKFLOW PREVENTER, 2" 1 EA $4,904.99 $4,904.99 195. 4" SEWER PIPE, DIP 178 LF $113.66 $20.231.48 196. SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION TO MAIN 1 EA $4.666.18 $4.666.18 197 SEWER CLEAN OUT 2 EA $988.60 $1.9-7.20 198 12" STORM DRAIN PIPE - PVC 84 LF $185.20 $15.556.80 199 6" STORM DRAIN PIPE - PVC 735 LF $45.13 $-;3.1i0.55 200. STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT 5 EA $800.65 $4.003.25 201. HDPE GEOMEMBRANE LINER 90 YD $39.95 $3.595.50 202 GROUTED RIP RAP 1 TON $ 75 s-3 1• $757.37 203. HEADWALL (CALTRANS STD PLAN D89) 1 EA $5.424.23 $5.424.23 204. CONCRETE DRAINAGE V-DITCH (I'WIDE) 492 LF $73.27 $36.048.84 205. CONCRETE DRAINAGE V-DITCH (2' WIDE) 438 LF $94.26 $41.285.88 206. CATCH BASIN 1 EA $2.372.82 $2.372.82 207 OMITTED PARKWAY DRAIN, SPPWC STD PLAN 151, 208. S=12", TYPE I 1 EA $8_058.80 $8_058.80 209 4" DRAINAGE INLET IN SWALE 5 EA $550_51 $2_752.55 210. 6" HARDSCAPE DRAINAGE INLET 7 EA $353_2_6 $2;40�2.8 211. 6" DRAINAGE INLET IN INFIELD DIRT 7 EA ,5 3 26 $2_4 2 82 212 RED CURB 106 LF $9.45 $1_001. 7a 213. TYPE IV (L/R) ARROW 65 SF $16.55 $1.075_75 214. MEDIAN ISLAND 45 LF 2- $-; 64 $1_063.80 INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF 215. ACCESSIBILITY (ISA) MARKING 48 SF $21.2, $1,020.96 PAVEMENT MARKING - EV CHARGING 216. ONLY 34 SF $26.00 $884.00 217. PAVEMENT MARKINGS - NO PARKING 39 SF $26.00 $1_014.00 218 PAVEMENT MARKINGS - STOP 145 SF $i.09 $1_028_05 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LIMIT LINE (STOP 219. LINE) 20 LF $3.55 $71.00 220 CHANNELIZING LINE 155 LF $3.55 $550_25 221 TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE 80 LF $3.55 $284.00 222 NO PASSING ZONES - TWO DIRECTION 890 LF $3.55 $3.159.50 223 FURNISH AND INSTALL SIGN AND POST 12 EA $511.83 $6_ti81.96 224 FURNISH AND INSTALL SIGN ONLY 2 EA $2;6_;7 $472.74 225 STANDARD PARKING STALL STRIPING 1,080 LF $2.36 $2.548.80 226 ADA PATH OF TRAVEL DIAGONAL STRIPING 655 SF $2.36 $1.545.80 227 1 %" WATER METER 1 EA $8_�11_tt $8_tll22_i� 228 PULL BOX 3'x5' 1 EA $11.398.85 $11.398.85 1-2" CONDUIT, SCH 40 PVC AND COPPER 229. WIRE 225 LF $60.50 $13,612.50 230. INTERIOR EMERGENCY LIGHTING 6 EA $886.38 $5.318.28 231. 800A PANEL BOARD 1 EA $24.488.91 $24.488.91 TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT: $8,225,972.97 TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT IN WORDS: Eight Million Two Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Two Dollars and 97/100 ALTERNATE BID SCHEDULE #1 Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarito, California Do NOT include this pricing in the total base bid amount. Fill out this form completely and upload it with your bid. In the event any mathematical discrepancies are found in the pricing forms submitted, the unit price shall govern. Do NOT enter this pricing on BidNet. The award of contract, if made, will be to the lowest responsive BIDDER determined solely by the AGENCY. The AGENCY also reserves the right to add/delete the quantities to the existing bid items, or delete the entire bid item if they are found not required by the Agency during the course of the construction, or add new bid items or scope of work by Contract Change Order at any time during the project up to the last contract working day. The BIDDER agrees to hold all unit prices in this Alternate Bid Schedule constant throughout the duration of the project up to the last contract working day. ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL NO. MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION, BONDS, 1 INSURANCE 1 LS 556:�11.,6 s56.1.76 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, 2 IMPLEMENTTION AND MAINTENANCE OF 1 LS S4:189.55 S4,199.55 BMPS S CONSTRUCTION FENCING 1 LS CLEARING, GRUBBING AND REMOVALS 12 C 51 kMS-5i S':=.'-'--=,=ci S CONCRETE PAVING PEDESTRIAN, 4" THICK 1 SF S2.5.00 S=5,1715.VU E CONCRETE STAIRS SF S99.96 5,1.249.32 HANDRAIL 284 EA 5165-46 5 6.9 64- S CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, SPPWC 616-3 30 LF 575u_59 522:51?.? TREE PROTECTION FENCING 78 LF S4233 S3.3U1.-_, 10 INLINE SPRING CHECK VALVE 5 EA S70.91 S;;_ AA 11 5/4" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 2E LF 12 3/4" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40-UVR) 409 LF �- -� �'• -- =- 13 TREE BUBBLER ON RISER 10 EA 51'.iS 51=1.SU 14 TRENCH, 1 1/4" CONDUITS & WIRE 550 LF S23.64 4S.,-- " 15 PULLBOXES AND JUNCTION BOXES 1 LS S2.954.60 52,954.60 PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION & 50.47 51.42.35 1E AMENDMENTS (SHRUBS & HYDROSEED) 5,155 SF 1 PLANTING AREA FINE GRADING 3,155 SF 18 JUTE NETTING 5,155 SF 50.54 51,361.� 19 TREES - 24" BOX 5 EA 5D.18QY.90 20 HYDROSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX 3,155 SF 50.24 575720 FIRST 90 DAYS OF PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, 21 MAINTENANCE PERIOD 3,155 SF 50.11,293.57 SECOND 90 DAYS OF PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, 501 51: 5�.55 22 MAINTENANCE PERIOD 3,155 SF 23 CONCRETE DRAINAGE V-DITCH (V WIDE) 235 LF 546.91 24 GROUTED RIP RAP 1 ALL„ si:�36.33 5t:536.39 1" PVC WATER LINE TO SERVE WATER_- --21 gq 6u 25 STATION 580 LF TOTAL ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT; $315,238.93 TOTAL BID AMOUNT IN WORDS; Three Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight Dollars and 93/100 ALTERNATE BID SCHEDULE #2 Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A City Project No. P4027 David March Park Phase II Improvements City of Santa Clarita, California Do NOT include this pricing in the total base bid amount. Fill out this form completely and upload it with your bid. In the event any mathematical discrepancies are found in the pricing forms submitted, the unit price shall govern. Do NOT enter this pricing on BidNet. The award of contract, if made, will be to the lowest responsive BIDDER determined solely by the AGENCY. The AGENCY also reserves the right to add/delete the quantities to the existing bid items, or delete the entire bid item if they are found not required by the Agency during the course of the construction, or add new bid items or scope of work by Contract Change Order at any time during the project up to the last contract working day. The BIDDER agrees to hold all unit prices in this Alternate Bid Schedule constant throughout the duration of the project up to the last contract working day. ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL NO. MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION, BONDS, 1 INSURANCE 1 LS 555.258.87 555.259.97 2 CONSTRUCTION FENCING 1 LS 53.745.08 53.745.08 TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRAFFIC HANDLING, & 3 CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE 1 LS 52,743.85 52.7=3.85 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, 4 IMPLEMENTTION AND MAINTENANCE OF 1 LS 513.559.43 513.553.=3 BM PS 5 CLEARING, GRUBBING AND REMOVALS 0.70 AC 518.2.44.11 512.770.98 6 ROUGH GRADING 1,500 CY 525.9= s3S,S1u.Uu 7 FINISHED GRADING 17,000 SF 51.u5 SIS.53CO. Uu CONCRETE MOW CURB, SPPWC 120-2, TYPE 8 A1-6 MOFIED TO A1-0 18 LF 530.-42 S511 .56 9 CONCRETE PAVING PEDESTRIAN, 4" THICK 176 SF 515.,1 S2.- =.5 10 CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH, 6.5" THICK 200 SF sill.=6 s?.S97.uu 11 CONCRETE CURBS, SPPWC 120-2, TYPE Al-6 411 LF S1u.653.1~ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, SPPWC 120-2, 12 TYPE A2-6 361 LF S3S.9= S1=,u5-.3= 13 ASPHALT PAVING - 4" 15,590 SF 56.15 SS6,3=6.'u 14 ASPHALT PAVING BASE - 8" 15,590 SF 53.82 S5S,553.8 15 LANDSCAPE BOULDERS 8 TON S55.35 „ s= u . " 641,. Sv 16 PEDESTRIAN WAYFINDING SIGN 1 EA S1.651.58 S1.65=.55 17 TRASH RECEPTACLE 1 EA S3.0 10.11 S3.v-0.11 18 DRINKING FOUNTAIN 1 EA 510.92+.5-' S1V.321.82 19 1" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE 3 EA 5295.46 S886.38. 20 LOW FLOW CONTROL VALVE 3 EA 5271.52 S815.46 21 INLINE SPRING CHECK VALVE 18 LF 570.91 51.2.76.38 22 QUICK COUPLER 2 LF 5265.91 553112 23 PULL BOX 2 LF S 2 .55 5-49.10 24 3" MAINLINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 475 LF 521.27 514.103.25 25 3/4" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 2,665 LF S10.64 S2S.355.60 26 1 1/4" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 12 LF 515.36 S1S4.32 27 1" LATERAL LINE (SCH. 40 PVC) 43 LF 515.36 S660AS 3/4" LATERAL LINE ON GRADE (SCH. 40- 28 UVR) 466 EA 510.64 5+,95524 29 SHRUB BUBBLER ON RISER 298 EA 515.36 S4,57728 30 TREE BUBBLER ON RISER 50 EA 515.36 S769_00 PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS - 1LED FIXTURE 31 ON 20' POLE WITH PHOTO CONTROL 7 EA 59,736.00 S6ES 152.00 TRENCH, 3/4", 1 1/4", 2" CONDUITS, 32 SCHEDULE 40 PVC AND COPPER WIRE 1,100 LF 538.54 S42.394.00 33 PULLBOXES AND JUNCTION BOXES 1 LS S85u.92 5950.92 PLANTING AREA SOIL PREPARATION & 34 AMENDMENTS (SHRUBS & HYDROSEED) 10,926 SF 5O.47 55,135.2 35 3" DEPTH OF ORGANIC MULCH 62 CY 559.09 53.663.5& 36 PLANTING AREA FINE GRADING 10,926 SF SO?4 52,62224 37 JUTE NETTING 9,273 SF 50.59 55,471-07 38 PROPOSED 1 GAL. SHRUBS 3 EA 51-18 542.54 39 PROPOSED 5 GAL. SHRUBS 71 EA S?9.55 52.09&-05 40 TREES - 24" BOX 12 EA S-472.74 5}.672.88 41 OVERSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX 1,709 SF Su.12 S?0S.08 42 HYDROSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX 4,206 SF Su?= 51.009.44 FIRST 90 DAYS OF PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, 43 MAINTENANCE PERIOD 10,926 SF Su.=1 54:479.66 SECOND 90 DAYS OF PLANT 44 ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE PERIOD 10,926 SF Su.=1 54,479.66 45 4" STORM DRAIN PIPE - PVC 131 LF 55=.02 57.076.62 46 STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT 1 EA S826. 5 5826-75 47 CONCRETE DRAINAGE V-DITCH (I'WIDE) 525 LF S78-00 540,950.00 48 4" DRAINAGE INLET IN SWALE 3 EA 5796.89 52;390.67 49 CATCH BASIN - 18" x 18" 2 EA 53:,?1.02 57.442.04 50 PARKWAY DRAIN 1 EA 58.37123 58.371- 3 51 CURB DRAIN 1 EA.�SU.-1�.�SY.-1 52 STANDARD PARKING STALL STRIPING 684 LF3 53 DIAGONAL HATCH STRIPING 645 SF ,. .36 54 REMOVE AC PAVEMENT 67 SF S1S.1S S1?8 .u6 TOTAL ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT: $631,249.47 TOTAL ALTERNATE BID AMOUNT IN WORDS: Six Hundred Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Eight Dollars and 47/100 BID SCHEDULE SUMMARY BID # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City of Santa Clarita, California BID SUMMARY TOTAL PRICE $8,225,972 97 IN FIGURES BASE BID TOTAL PRICE IN Eight Million Two Hundred Twenty Five Thousand WORDS Nine Hundred Seventy Two Dollars and 97/100 TOTAL PRICE $315,238 93 7 ALTERNATE IN FIGURES BID #1 TOTAL PRICE IN Three Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred WORDS Thirty Eight Dollars and 93/100 TOTAL PRICE $531,248.47 ALTERNATE IN FIGURES BID #2 TOTAL PRICE IN Six Hundred Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred WORDS Forty Eight Dollars and 47/100 TOTAL PRICE $999,154.99 ALTERNATE IN FIGURES BID #3 TOTAL PRICE IN Eight Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand One WORDS Hundred Fifty Four and 99/100 TOTAL OF TOTAL PRICE $10,070,615.36 BASE BID IN FIGURES PLUS ALL ALTERNATE TOTAL PRICE IN Ten Million Seventy Thousand Six Hundred Fifteen Dollars BIDS WORDS and 36/100 BIDDER'S INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase If Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, CA Bidder certifies that the representations of the bid are true and correct and made under penalty of perjury. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE Bidder certifies that in all previous contracts or subcontracts, all reports which may have been due under the requirements of any CITY, State, or Federal equal employment opportunity orders have been satisfactorily filed, and that no such reports are currently outstanding. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION Bidder certifies that affirmative action has been taken to seek out and consider minority business enterprises for those portions of the work to be subcontracted, and that such affirmative actions have been fully documented, that said documentation is open to inspection, and that said affirmative action will remain in effect for the life of any contract awarded hereunder. Furthermore, Bidder certifies that affirmative action will be taken to meet all equal employment opportunity requirements of the contract documents. CERTIFICATION REGARDING DIR CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR REGISTRATION By my signature hereunder, as the Contractor, I certify that Contractor, and all Subcontractors listed on the Subcontractor Designations form are the subject of current and active contractor registrations pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. Contractor's registration number is indicated below. Subcontractors' registration numbers are indicated on the Subcontractor Designations form. Bidder's Name: Urban Habitat Business Address: PO Box 1177, La Quinta, CA 92247 _ Telephone No.: (760) 345-1101 State CONTRACTOR's License No. & Class: 963744 A, G-27 DIR No.: 00.GG03890 Original Date: 07/27/201 1 Expiration Date: 06/30/2025 The following are the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of all individuals, firm members, partners, joint ventures, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest in this proposal: , .._ Marion Weed CFO / Treasurer The dates of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy judgments against any principal having an interest in this proposal, or any firm, corporation, partnership or joint venture of which any principal having an interest in this proposal was an owner, corporate officer, partner or joint venture are as follows: NIA All current and prior DBAs, alias, and/or fictitious business names for any principal having an interest in this proposal are as follows: Urban Habitat Environmental Landscapes IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BIDDER executes .n submits this proposal with the names, title, hands, and seals of all aforementioned principals th' day oft% 2o44. BIDDER: ignat Brett Brennan, President Name and Title of Signatory Urban Habitat Legal Name of Bidder • :o. 11 7Z, La Quanta.92247 Address 760 345-1101 Telephone Number 45-2405501 Federal Tax I.D. No. BIDDER'S QUESTIONNAIRE Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase 11 Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California 1. Submitted by: Brett Brennan Telephone: (760) 345-1101 Principal Office Address: 47250 Washington St. Ste B, La Quinta, CA 92253 2. Type of Firm: ❑ C Corporation S Corporation ❑ Individual/Sole Proprietor or Single —Member LLC ❑ Partnership ❑ Limited Liability Company "C" C-Corp ❑ Limited Liability Company "S" S-Carp ❑ Limited Liability Company "P" Partnership ❑ Other 3a. If a corporation, answer these questions: Date of Incorporation: 07/27/2011 State of Incorporation: California President's Name: Brett Brennan Vice -President's Name: Brett Brennan Secretary or Clerk's Name: Brett Brennan Treasurer's Name: Marion Weed 3b. If a partnership, answer these questions: Date of organization: _ Name of all partners hol Designate which are Gei BIDDER'S QUESTIONNAIRE_(cont'd� Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California 4. Name of person holding CONTRACTOR'S license: Brett Brennan License number: 963744 Class: A, C-27 Expiration Date: 07/31/2025 D.I.R. Registration # 1000003890 CONTRACTOR'S Representative: Mark Faessel Title; Site Development Estimator Alternate: Gerald Johnson Title: Project Manager 6, List the major construction projects your organization has in progress as of this date: A. owner: City of Cathedral City- Dream Homes Park Project Location: 30638 San Diego Dr., Cathedral City, CA 92234 Type of Project: demo, Turf, Restroom, Shade structure, Basketball court, Site furnishing, Landscape, Irrigation B. owner: City of Buena Park- Whitaker School Park Project Project Location: 8401 Montana Ave., Buena Park, CA 90621 Type of Project: Grading, Electrical, Lighting, Drainage, sewer, concrete, restroom buildout, playground equipment, site furnishing, landscape & Irrigation C. owner: City of Pico Rivera- Maior Corridors & Rosemead Boulevard Medians Project Location: Slauson, Paramount, Washington, Whittier, Rosemead Medians & Shoulders Type of Project: Demo Landscape, Irrigation, Electrical, Concrete, Traffic Control Type, here CERTIFICATION OF NON -SEGREGATED FACILITIES Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California The BIDDER certifies that it does not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not permit its employees to perform their services at any location, under its control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The BIDDER certifies further that it will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location, under its control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The BIDDER agrees that a breach of this certification is a violation of the Equal Opportunity clause in this Contract. As used in this certification, the term "segregated facilities" means any waiting rooms, work areas, rest rooms, and wash rooms, restaurants and other eating areas, time clocks, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees which are segregated by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin, because of habit, local custom, or otherwise. The BIDDER agrees that (except where it has obtained identical certifications from proposed subcontractors for specific time periods) it will obtain identical certifications from proposed subcontractors prior to the award of subcontracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the E use, and that it will retain such certifications in its files. BIDDER Required by the May 19, 1967 order on Elimination of Segregated Facilities, by the Secretary of Labor -- 32 F.R. 7439, May 19, 1967 (F.R. Vol. 33, No. 33 — Friday, February 16, 1968 — p. 3065). DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Hardy Harper 1000000076 $170,000.00 Location and Place of Business Lake Forest, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 55-57 Asphalt Paving License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 215952 6/30/2025 (714) 444-1851 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work West Coast Turf 1000009410 $41,000.00 Location and Place of Business Palm Desert, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 186 Turf Install License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 688087 6/30/2024 (760) 340-7300 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Jet Mulch 1000006584 $45,000.00 Location and Place of Business Capitola, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 176 Mulch Application License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 800650 6/30/2025 (866) 306-8524 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Adkan Engineers 1000001712 $50,000.00 Location and Place of Business Riverside, CA Bid hedule Item No's: Descriq oil of fork . 6onsteructlon Staking License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) N/A 6/30/2024 951.688.0241 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Ferandell Tennis 1000004786 $14,000.00 Location and Place of Business Carlsbad, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 77 Court Surfacing License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 603945 6/30/2024 (858) 350-3444 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of W71< Builders Unlimited 1000020886 $145,000.00 Location and Place of Business Lancaster, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Descriptior of Work 7 Rough Carpentry License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 794116 6/30/2024 (661) 810-6037 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Brentwood Sheet Metal 1001005901 $100,000.00 Location and Place of Business Lancaster, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Descri tion of Work 7, 9 Roofing/Sheet Metal License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 928913 6/30/2024 805 291-6184 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Team West 1000768825 $400,000.00 Location and Place of Business Bloomington, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 91-92, 94-97, 101-103 Fencing/Handrails License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 934352 6/30/2025 909 421-4450 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Vanguard Paint 1000002890 $50,000.00 Location and Place of Business Oxnard, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 7-11 Painting/AGC License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 554570 6/30/2025 (805) 650-0111 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Rutherford Co 1000012233 $35,000.00 Location and Place of Business Los Angeles, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: D scription lark 7 Dry wall% aster License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 1399033 6/30/2025 (323) 666-5285 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work YTI 1000005750 $12,500.00 Location and Place of Business Anaheim, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 7 Bathroom Accessories License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 830286 6/30/2025 (714) 632-8696 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Powercon 1000031876 $40,000.00 Location and Place of Business El Cajon, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Descriptior of Clark 8 Canopy Installation License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 1016331 6/30/2025 (619) 599-2222 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work USA Shade 1000003533 $630,000.00 Location and Place of Business Coppell, TX Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 142-145 Sail Supply/Installation License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 989458 6/30/2025 (214) 905-9500 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Chrisp Company 1000000306 $25,000.00 Location and Place of Business Fremont, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 212-226 Signage/Striping License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 374600 6/30/2024 (510) 656-2840 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Pipe Pros 1000004817 $125,000.00 Location and Place of Business Asuza, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 8 Plumbing Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) License No. 909260 6/30/2026 (626) 969-6161 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work SW V Ditch 1000004410 $60,000.00 Location and Place of Business Riverside, CA Bid Sched ile Item No's: Description of `" 204/205 Concrete Swales L Exp, Date: / / Phone ( ) 569779 6/30/2025 (951) 781-4303 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Ferreira 1000001634 $1,200,000.00 Location and Place of Business Rancho Cucamonga, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 146-172, 228-231 Electrical License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) 985180 6/30/2026 (909) 606-5900 Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work RE Chaffee 1000707243 $30,000.00 Location and Place of Business Wrightwood, CA Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work 7/9 Ironwork Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) License No. 897948 6/30/2027 (760) 249-8068 NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS Bid # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clorito, California Listed below are the names and locations of the places of business of each subcontractor, supplier, and vendor who will perform work or labor or render service in excess of/: of 1 percent, or $10,000 (whichever is greater) of the prime contractor's total bid. If no Subcontractors will be used fill out the form with NA. Add addt. sheets if needed. Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Location and Place of Business Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Location and Place of Business Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) Subcontractor DIR Registration No.* Dollar Value of Work Location and Place of Business Bid Schedule Item No's: Description of Work License No. Exp. Date: / / Phone ( ) NOTE: A BIDDER or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 ofthe Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered BIDDER to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the BIDDER is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded. *Pursuant to Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1720) of the California Labor Code. REFERENCES Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three public agencies for which bidder has performed and completed work of a similar scope and size within the past 3 years. If the scope of work/specifications requests references different than instructions above, the scope of work/specifications shall govern: . City of Santa Clarita Name and Address of Owner / Agency Terry Brice- (661) 286-4097 Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project Grading, landscape, irrigation, restroom, concrete, basketball court, wet utilities, October 2023 _$11 Million signage, ele_c_rtical, shade structure Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed 2. SilverRock Park Venue Name and Address of Owner / Agency Ubaldo Ayon- (760) 777-7000 _ Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project Build the new SilverRock Park & Venue Site- Landscape, Irrigation, Concrete, Restroom, Amphitheater, pavers, May 2021 $5 4 Million electrical, event site, wet utilities Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed 3. S. Jackson & Davis Field Improvement Projects Name and Address of Owner / Agency Mike Edaar- (760) 391-4026 Name and Telephone Number of Person Familiar with Project GC: Demo, landscape, irrigation, concrete, $1.3 Million paving, fencing, electical, shade, playground, structure August 2023 Contract Amount Type of Work Date Completed The following are the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all brokers and sureties from whom bidder intends to procure insurance bonds: Developers Surety and Indemnity Company _ Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. Matt Gaynor- (619) 937-0165 2355 Northside Drive. Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108 IRAN CONTRACTING ACT CERTIFICATION (Public Contract Code Sections 2200 etseq.) Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California As required by California Public Contract Code section 2204, Proposer certifies that the option checked below relating to Proposer's status in regard to the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 (Public Contract Code sections 2200 et seq.) is true and correct: Proposer is not: (i) identified on the current list of persons and entities engaging in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2203; or (d) a financial institution that extends, for 45 days or more, credit in the amount of $20,000,000 or more to any other person or entity identified on the current list of persons and entities engaging in investment activities in Iran prepared by the California Department of General Services in accordance with subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2203, if that person or entity uses or will use the credit to provide goods or services in the energy sector in Iran. ❑ Los Angeles County has exempted Proposer from the requirements of the Iran Contracting Act of 2010 after malting a public finding that, absent the exemption, Los Angeles County will be unable to obtain the goods and/or services to be provided pursuant to the Contract. ❑ The amount of the Contract payable to Proposer for the Project is less than $1,000,000. CERTIFICATION I, the official named below, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that I am duly authorized to legally bind the Proposer(Cb the above selected option. This certification is made under the laws of the State of California. Contractor Urban Habitat Firm ::ts I )'.? /Zc-i Date Brett Brennan President Name/Title Note: In accordance with Public Contract Code section 2205, false certification of this form shall be reported to the California Attorney General and may result in civil penalties equal to the greater of $250,000 or twice the Contract amount, termination of the Contract and/or ineligibility to bid on contracts for three years. END OF DOCUMENT NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT (Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code Section 7106) Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California To the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA: In conformance with Title 23 United States Code Section 112 and Public Contract Code 7106, the Bidder declares that the bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the Bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other bidder to put in a false or sham bid, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any bidder or anyone else to put in a sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding; that the Bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of the Bidder or any other bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the bid price, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract of anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the bid are true; and, further, that the Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham bid. THE BIDDER'S EXECUTION ON THE SIGNATURE PORTION OF THE "BIDDER'S CERTIFICATION" SHALL ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ENDORSEMENT AND EXECUTION OF THOSE CERTIFICATIONS WHICH FORM A PART OF THE PROPOSAL. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED THAT MAKING A FALSE CERTIFICATION MAY SUBJECT THE CERTIFIER TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. NON -COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California TO BE EXECUTED BY EACH BIDDER OF A PRINCIPAL CONTRACT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Brett Brennan being first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she is the President (sole owner, a partner, president, etc.) of Urban Habitat the party making the foregoing bid; that such bid is not made in the interest of or behalf of any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization or corporation, that such bid is genuine and not collusive or sham, that said BIDDER has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to put in a false or sham bid, or that anyone shall refrain from bidding, that said BIDDER has not in any manner, directly or indirectly sought by agreements, communication or conference with anyone to fix the bid price of said BIDDER or of any other BIDDER, or to fix the overhead, profit, or cost element of such bid price, or of that of any other BIDDER, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the Contract or anyone interested in the proposed Contract; that all statements contained in such bid are true, and further, that said BIDDER has not, directly or indirectly, submitted its bid price, or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or date relative thereto, or paid and will not pay any fee in connection, therewith to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or CITY thereof, or to any other individual information or date relative thereto, or paid and will not pay any fee in connection, therewith to any corporation, partnership, company association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or CITY thereof, or to any other individual, except to such person or persons as have a partnership or other financial interest with said BIDDER in his general business. Bidder: Sig Title President California Jurat Certificate A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California �. s.s. County of Riverside Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 16 day of May , Month 20 24 , by Brett Brennan and Name of Signer (1) proved to me on the basis of Name of Signer (2) satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. mwamm I J. CLIDAA,4AGdN Notary Gub11c • California • Signature of N tary Public CoRiverside County mmissian # 2402676 *'V Comm, Expires Fsb 23. 2025 J. Elida Aragon, Notary Public i���� For other required information {Notary Name, Commission No. etc,) Seal OPTIONAL INFORMATION Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could preuent fraudulent removal and reattachmefit of this jurat to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document. Description of Attached Document The certificate is attached to a document titled/for the purpose of containing pages, and dated 1 6 ® 9 B I Method of Affiant Identification Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence: O form(s) of identification O credible witness(es) Notarial event is detailed in notary journal on: Page# Entry# Notary contact: Other [] Affiant(s) Thumbprint(s) ❑ Describe: C) 2009-2015 Notary Learning Center - All Rights Reserved You can purchase copies of this foram from our web site at www.TheNotarysStore.com O� 6A�r1 Cl C7 y:Y' 4F4 �u.�EMaEF. _' END OF ADDENDUM Addendum No. 1 May 1, 2024 This addendum must be acknowledgedviaBidNet and should be included with the response. Brett Brennan;' 5/6/2024 Contractor's Representative Date Urban Habitat Company Name BID # CIP-23-24-P4027A 4 gnHT.� e Lry�FO iG AECEM�k�,9b Addendum No. 2 BID # CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase 11 Improvements City of Santa Clarita, California Addendum No. 2 May 8, 2024 This addendum must be acknowledged via BidNet and should be included with the bid response. The purpose of this addendum is to address the following for this Notice Inviting Bids (NIB): 1. Q&A DEADLINE— EXTENSION The Q&A deadline has been extended to May 15, 2024 at 11:00 AM (PT). Please submit your questions prior to the new deadline. 11. BID CLOSING DATE — EXTENSION The bid closing deadline has been extended. Bids are now due before 11:00 AM (PT) on May 23, 2024. END OF ADDENDUM This addendum must be acknowledged via, BidNet and should be included with the response. Brett Brennan �- May 13th 2024 Contractor's Repk�-sentative Date Urban Habitat Company Name BID # CIP-23-24-P4027A Addendum No. 3 May 10, 2024 END OF ADDENDUM This addendum most be acknowledged via BidNet and should be included with the response. Brett Brennan May 7th 2024 Contractor'sl?gpfe-sentative Dante Urban Habitat Company Name BID # CIP-23-24-P4027A W....u., u. .... .,,..r...". k..— — « .— .., . -- IV. BID CLOSING DEADLINE — EXTENSION Bids are now due before 2:00 PM (PT) on May 24, 2024. Approved: Docuftned by: �r ft7n Pickett signing for Damon Letz City Engineer END OF ADDENDUM Addendum No-4 May 16, 2024 This addendum must be acknowledged via BidNet and should be included with the response. Brett Brennan 5/17/2024 Contractor's Reprehentative Date Urban Habitat Company Name BID #t CIP-23-24-P4027A PROPOSAL GUARANTEE BID BOND Bid #CIP-23-24-P4027A David March Park Phase II Improvements City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, California KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that Urban Habitat , as BIDDER, and Developers Surety and Indemnity Company as SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto the tcu perccnt of 10% City of Santa Clarita, as CITY, in the penal sum of total bid amount dollars ($ ), which is ten percent (10%) of the total amount bid by BIDDER to CITY for the above -stated project, for the payment of which sum, BIDDER and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH that, whereas BIDDER is about to submit a bid to CITY for the above -stated project, if said bid is rejected, or if said bid is accepted and the contract is awarded and entered into by BIDDER in the manner and time specified, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect in favor of CITY. IN WITNESS WHEREAS, the parties hereto have set their names, titles, hands, and seals, this 14th CONTRACTOR: Day of M 20 24 . 1Va,'— QII I.— VI J1611P 1V1 Y .��611u�In� Urban Habitat Legal Name of Bidder P.O. Box 1177, La Quinta, CA 92247 Bidder Address (760) 345-1101 Telephone Number SURETY*: Developers Surety and Indemnity Corn Name 45-2405501 Federal Tax I.D. No. (949) 271-7469 Ramona. Seidman(a.amtrustgroup.com Phone Number and Email 800 Superior Avenue E., 21st Floor, Cleveland, OH 44114 Address rney-in-ra *Provide BIDDER and SURETY name, phone number, email, and the name, title, address, and phone number for authorized representative. IMPORTANT - Surety Companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570, as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. Surety signatures must be notarized prior to submittal. CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 II #f3aF3#`r3szr3#"3P"K3�+ f3f3i€t E484�9 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Riverside On May/ 14,_2024 before me, J. Elida Aragon, Notary Public Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared _ Brett Brennan Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing J. ELiDn.UGON paragraph is true and correct. Notary r'ublic • Caiiforn, amiss] a 2482 WITNESS m hand and official seal. Commission � 2482676 y My Comm. Ex30ires Feb 23. " 00, Aph M, Signature UA"A-'-V--- y Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Notary Public Vr I IVI`!/i{. Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator n Other - Signer is Representing: ©2019 National Notary Association Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: I POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY 59 Maiden Lane, 43rd Floor, New York, NY 10038 (212)220-7120 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that, except as expressl) limited herein, COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY. do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Matt Gaynor, Anne Wright and Andy Roberts of San Diego, CA as its true and lawful Attorney, to make, execute, deliver and acknowledge, for and on behalf of said companies, as sureties, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship giving and granting unto said Attorney -in -Fact full power and authority to do and to perform every act necessary, requisite or proper to be done in connection therewith as each of said company could do, but reserving to each of said company full power of substitution and revocation, and all of the acts of said Attorney -in -Fact, pursuant to these presents, are hereby ratified and confirmed This Power of Attorney is effective May 14, 2024 and shall expire on December 31, 2025. This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors ofCOREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY (collectively, "Company") on November 3, 2022. RESOLVED, that Sam Zaza Senior Vice President, Surety Underwriting, James Bell, Vice President. Sure Underwriting . and Craie Dawson, Executive Underwriter, Sx, each an employee of AniTrusl North America, Inc., an affiliate of the Company (the "Authorized Signors"),are hereby authorized to execute a Power of Attorney, qualifying attorneys) -in -fact named in the Power of Attorney to execute, on behalf of the Company, bonds, undertakings and contracts ofsuretyship, or other suretyship obligations; and that the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the Company be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to attest the execution of any such Power of Attorney. RESOLVED, that the signature of any one of the Authorized Signors and the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of the Company, and the seal of the Company must be affixed to any such Power of Attorney, and any such signature or seal may be affixed by facsimile, and such Power of Attorney shall be valid and binding upon the Company when so affixed and in the future with respect to any bond, undertaking or contract of suretyship to which it is attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY have caused these presents to be signed by the .Authorized Signor and attested by their Secretary or Assistant Secretary this December 5, 2022. I3y Printed Name Sam Zaza 'Title: Senior Vice President, STATE OF California COUNTY OF orange ,,'t,44160000",0 1NSURA,V, ••. • O '•�'� : O a SEAL:: O •2• J •'•��AWAR�•' 1' •: /`�J��,�.�• AND •• GO�PO�T� •�!�': o1. c�••\P••�,/ _e�unrt�, On this!5�day of f 20 .11 before me, -I. �D personally appeared Sam Zaza who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory, evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by the signature on the instrument the entities upon behalf which the person acted, executed this instrument. I certify, under penalty of penury, under the laws of tirc State of California WITNESS my hand and official sear that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Signature 44Z4 A �Q� IJ CORPORATE CERTIFICATION DIANE J. KAWATA Notary Public • California , 1 ®R., Orange County Commission A 2284027 My Comm. Expires Apr 28, 2023 The undersigned, the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of COREPOINTE INSURANCE COMPANY and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY. does hereby certify that the provisions of the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of said corporations set forth in this Power of Attorney are in force as of the date of this Certification. This Certification is executed —DocuSigned by: By: 686416E7ADE64BC _ _ _._ n the City of Cleveland. Ohio, this 22 day of November. 2022. Barry W Moses. Assistant Secretary POA No. Ed 1122 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of San Diego On May 14, 2024 before me, Andrew Roberts, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Matt Gaynor who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS m hand nd official seal. P5 ° F ANDREW ROBERTS y � Notary Public -California San Diego County ° Commission N 2474326 ^��Foa+�� My Comm. Expires Dec 26, 2027 Signature (Seal) isa(.,onverse Gons 1iii nts Geatechnical Engineering Eminentai & Groundwater ScienceInspectiecti on &Testing Services Presented By: Converse Consultants 717 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, California 91016 (626) 930-1275 ksivathasan@converseconsultants.com May 24, 2024 REVISED June 3, 2024 6 Converse Consultants Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services May 23, 2024 REVISED June 3, 2024 Ms. Jaclyn Abston City of Santa Clarita Purchasing Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 265 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE MATERIALS TESTING David March Park City Project No. P4027 David March Park, Saugus, California (Northeast corner of Via Joyce Drive and Plum Canyon Road) City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, State of California Converse Project No. 24-31-192-00 Dear Ms. Abston, THE CONVERSE PROFESSIONAL GROUP, dba Converse Consultants (Converse), appreciates the opportunity to submit this revised proposal for Materials Testing for the David March Park City Project to the City of Santa Clarita (City) in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) CIP-23-24-P4027M. Converse has provided materials testing to several cities, school districts, and other public agencies throughout Southern California for more than 78 years. Converse is registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (#1000001465; expires 6/30/26). We have an experienced and multi -disciplinary technical staff, employ project -tested quality control procedures, and maintain W a high client retention rate, so many of our clients have been longtime partners. This proposal is signed by Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, an individual authorized to bind Converse Consultants. It is a firm offer for a 90-day period. The proposed work will be performed at a "not -to -exceed" price. The City's standard contract (Attachment "A") is acceptable. We request no deviation therefrom. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (626) 930- 1275 if you have any questions or wish to discuss this proposal in greater detail. Sincerely, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, DGE, QSD, F. ASCE Senior Vice President / Principal Engineer SKS:ed 717 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 Telephone: (626) 930-1200 ♦ Facsimile: (626) 930-1212 ♦ www.converseconsultants.com Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 2. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT TEAM ................................ 3. WORK STATEMENT....................................................................... 4. REFERENCES................................................................................ 5. COST FILE...................................................................................... 6. STATEMENT OF OFFER AND SIGNATURE ................................. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 3 1.INTRODUCTION Converse will provide requested construction support services to assist the City's Project team to successfully complete the Project and protect the City's interest. Converse has relevant experience in overseeing the construction of projects in similar scope and complexity to the City's Project and in all other technical areas listed in the project information section of this proposal, as well as all relevant requirements of the current applicable jurisdictions, codes, and regulations, State and City building and fire requirements, State of California Building Code Title 24, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. Converse is knowledgeable of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format specifications. David March Park, the Project site, is located on the northeast corner of Via Joyce Drive and Plum Canyon Road on approximately 12 acres in Saugus. The existing developed portion of the park consists of approximately two (2) acres and currently includes BBQs, Child Play Area, Fitness Zone, Horseshoe Pit, Picnic Tables, and a Public Restroom. This Project will include improvements to the existing, developed park as well as an expansion to the park by developing the lower section of the property, encompassing approximately five (5) additional acres. Final design plans are currently in development with the City's design consultant, Psomas, which will include all the key elements in the existing and new park areas to enhance recreational opportunities for residents. These elements are listed below: Walkways and Parking: • Walkways, Ramps and Stairs from upper site to lower site • Pathway lighting along walkway • Concrete walkway surrounding the area that includes the play areas, picnic tables and basketball court • Existing Parking Lot to be enlarged to provide additional spaces New Parking Lot to accommodate added amenities, with EV and ADA spaces. Site Amenities: • New Restroom building with large storage area for maintenance operations. • Outdoor Basketball Court • New shade canopy structures • Picnic Pavilion • Covered trash enclosures/receptacles • Additional passive recreational opportunities Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 4 Athletic Field: Baseball field with lighting Shaded spectator areas Landscape Planting and Irrigation: • Landscape and irrigation improvements to the park would include but not be limited to, turf, shrubs, trees and automated irrigation system. Exercise Stairs (Additive Alternate): • Additional Parking Lot with lighting • Dirt walkway connecting the new parking lot with the exercise stairs as well as the baseball field • Exercise stairs with approximately 143 steps and 84 feet of elevation gain • The services requested include the following tasks and more specific details are provided in Section III (Scope of Work). 2. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT TEAM The Converse team will be led by Project Manager Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, QSD and Project Engineer Babak Abbasi, PhD, PE. Supporting them will be numerous technicians and inspectors. Following is a chart describing the names, titles and responsibilities of key personnel who will be responsible for the management of each task within the proposal for this project. We have included qualifications, resumes, experience of each, and length of time with Converse. Converse will ensure the City -approved Deputy/Special Inspectors are registered with the City of Santa Clarita. Inspectors DSA Masonry, AWS-CWI, ICC Reinforced Concrete Brandon Williams ICC Struct. Masonry, ICC Steel & Bolting Welding, I, Spray -Applied Fireproofing, ACI Concrete, Grade I Craig Hainsworth AWS CWI, ICC Concrete ACI Grade I, Batch Plant, DSA Masonry, ICC Karl Price Reinforced Concrete, ICC Structural Masonry, ICC I Concrete, ICC Spray -Applied, Fireproofing, Torque Testing Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 5 ICC Reinforced Concrete, ICC Structural Masonry, Ken Jones DSA Masonry, ACI Grade I Field Tech, Class C-8 29 15 Concrete Contractor Sergio Perez ACI Grade I, Nuclear Gauge, ICC Reinforced 20 20 Concrete, ICC Masonry, ICC Fireproofing Kevin Tran AWS CWI, ICC Structural Steel & Bolting 15 15 Franklin Tsai AWS CWI, UT, MT, Post Tension, ICC Steel & Welding 22 15 Edward Tsai AWS CWI, Certified Level II - UT, MT, Certificate in 15 15 Training in Level 1/11- UT, MT, PT, RT & ET David Hainsworth AWS CWI 13 13 Doug Lupo ICC Reinforced Concrete, ACI Certified 16 15 Henry Arredondo AWS, CWI, ICC Structural Steel, Bolting & Welding 17 17 DSA Masonry, ICC Masonry, ICC Concrete, ACI Mario Rey 46 42 certified, Caltrans 504, 518, 533, 539, 540, 556, 557 ICC Reinforced Concrete, ICC Structural Masonry, Paul R. Berns ICC Spray Applied Fireproofing 25 3 A.C.I. Field Technician 1, Nuclear Gauge Safety Certified (CPN 1999) Field Technicians Bill Kowalski Brian Kauffman Diego Garcia Thomas Groover Exp. Converse Caltrans 504, 518, 539, 540, 543, 556, 557, ACI Certified 20 20 Field Tech Grade I, Nuclear Gauge Caltrans 504, 518, 539, 540, 543, 556, 557, ACI, Nuclear 21 21 Gauge, ACI Concrete Field Tech Grade I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Caltrans 125, 504, 518, 523, 539, 540, 543, 556, 557, 13 13 ACI Certified Field Tech Grade I, Nuclear Gauge Nuclear Gauge, ACI Grade 1 1 23 1 10 Sean Castillo Caltrans 216, 231, Nuclear Gauge, ACI Grade 1 17 17 Jose Navarrete Nuclear Gauge, ACI Grade I, Caltrans 504, 518, 533, 17 17 540, 543, 556, 557 Daniel Arteaga BS, ICC Soils, Nuclear Gauge 36 21 Jawad Safir ICC Spray Applied Fire Proofing Special Inspector, ACI 3 2.5 Concrete Field -Testing Technician - Grade I Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 6 Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, DGE, QSD, F.ASCE Project Manager Dr. Sivathasan is a registered civil and geotechnical engineer in California, with 29 years of geotechnical and construction experience. He is skilled at analyzing complex geotechnical problems and preparing comprehensive reports with detailed recommendations. He is a subject matter expert for the California Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists for geotechnical engineering exam development. Dr. Sivathasan teaches several civil engineering classes at Cal Poly Pomona on a part-time basis. He also teaches geotechnical engineering and engineering surveying sections for the California Professional Engineer Exam. He is the vice chair of the ACSE Los Angeles Section Geotechnical Group and has published several papers. Relevant Experience EDU('nTin' PhD, Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 2002 REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS California, Civil Engineer No. 63185 California, Geotechnical Engineer No. 2708 Diplomate in Geotechnical Engineering No. 1169 CFR 1910.120 OSHA 8-Hour Refresher Training CFR 1910.120 OSHA40-Hour Training Nuclear Soil Density Gauge Certification OVERALL EXPERIENCL 29 years EXPERIENCE WITH CONVLRSL 9 years Los Angeles Unified School District, Olive Vista Middle School Seismic Replacement, Sylmar, CA. Project Manager. Managed project schedule and budget and oversaw fieldwork of the geotechnical observation and testing, and material testing and special inspection for the project. The project includes providing materials testing and inspection services during construction of the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) Olive Vista Middle School Seismic Replacement of Physical Education, Multi -Purpose Room, Lunch Pavilion and Student Store Buildings Project. Rowland Unified School District, Rowland High School Additions, Rowland Heights, CA. Project Manager. Converse provided various special inspection and testing services for the Rowland High School Additions project. Additions consist of the new two-story Administration and Library Building (approximately 12,600 square feet), the new two-story Classroom Building C (approximately 15,000 square feet), the new single -story ASB Building (approximately 1,800 square feet), the new single -story Special Education Building (approximately 2,600 square feet), and the new single -story Theatre/Cafeteria/Multipurpose Building with a 30-foot fly tower parapet (approximately 31,200 square feet). Norwalk -La Mirada Unified School District, Benton Middle School, La Mirada, CA. Project Manager. Converse completed a geoseismic/geotechnical investigation for the proposed campus -wide Landscape Renovation with Accessory Structures. Our scope of work included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic evaluation and geotechnical analysis to provide recommendations during design and construction. The development consists of campus -wide landscape renovation along with the construction of a new concession/restroom building and associated hardscape and landscape improvements at the existing Benton Middle School site. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 7 Norwalk -La Mirada Unified School District, Corvallis Middle School, La Mirada, CA. Project Manager. Converse completed a geoseismic/geotechnical investigation for the proposed campus -wide Landscape Renovation with Accessory Structures. Our scope of work included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic evaluation and geotechnical analysis to provide recommendations during design and construction. The development consists of campus -wide landscape renovation along with the construction of a new concession/restroom building and associated hardscape and landscape improvements at the existing Corvallis Middle School site. Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District, Lincoln Middle School Athletics Field Renovation Project, Santa Monica, CA. Project Manager. Converse completed a geoseismic/geotechnical investigation to provide recommendations for the new track and field. The project involves the construction of a new athletics field with a new synthetic track and field, new sports field lighting and associated site improvements. Los Angeles Unified School District, Cleveland High School Modernization Project, Reseda, CA. Project Manager. Converse completed a geotechnical study report for the comprehensive modernization project located within Cleveland High School. The project will consist of removing the existing structures and providing new permanent classroom buildings, cafeteria, lunch shelter, student store, multipurpose building, and library located at the existing Cleveland High School site. Los Angeles Unified School District, Robert Frost Middle School, Grenada Hills, CA. Project Manager. Provided geotechnical investigation and completed a geotechnical study report for percolation testing and pavement improvement at Robert Frost Middle School. The project consists of pavement improvements and installation of pervious asphalt concrete at the western portion of the site in Parking Lot 1; installation of a subterranean infiltration system in the eastern portion of the site in the field area along with the replacement of existing turf and irrigation systems; and installation of pervious asphalt concrete at the northern portion of the site in Parking Lot 2 as an alternative to Parking Lot 1. BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, ISSUAMCE DATE LAND SURVEYORS, AND GEOLOGISTS v ANUA;& WO WC.E E%PI RATI ON DATE LICENSING DETAILS FOR: 2708 NAME: :i I'r T'Hr'.y nti. KATI, R.",vFTall I A JUPIF 30.:10( LICENIE TYPE: C=F 2TF214L PCAI FNC, NFFR CURRENT DATE f TIME ICrNZE STA4 ADDREBE TU3: Z:-. WAY 1 7C d I) iS 3b P!d 374', CRFSTVIFV7 DRMF NORCO CA WIND R1V+FRS, DF COUNTY LICENSE RELATIONSHIPS 14AME: SIVA-AaAIA. KA'l L 2: '+ ;I x ADDRESS. t,:t[H3G1tC4adTRr:' CN —,-F. C. r 1 -,9 NP ER )2" MCI S Vii W DMVF l:tR' 3 ICUr03h k+".'ti PRIWARY%-ATU9 C1.r.AR HIYE H81M. COUNTY MAP Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 8 Babak Abbasi, PhD, PE Senior Staff Engineer Dr. Abbasi has seven years of providing geotechnical FDUCATION services during the design of infrastructure projects. He PhD, Civil Engineering, Washington serves as lead technician during construction for the State University, 2017 observation, testing, and inspection of soils and construction materials, as well as managing the material REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS testing lab of Monrovia office. He leads the lab California, Civil Engineer accreditations for Caltrans, DSA, and AASHTO. No. 94467 Nuclear Soil Density Gauge Relevant tX erienct p Certification Caltrans CT 231 Relative Compaction - Nuclear Gage El Monte Union High School District, Arroyo High Caltrans CT 521 Compressive School Track and Field Project, El Monte, CA. Senior Strength - PCC Staff Engineer. Performed field investigation and percolation testing and prepared Geotechnical �FILIATIONS Investigation Report for the project. The proposed project Associate Member of American entails track and field improvements which includes two Society of Civil Engineers, No. new buildings, storm water drainage system and other 9568207 related improvements within the existing Arroyo High HKLAS OF CXF°EKIi6L School campus. Geotechnical Engineering Deep & Shallow Foundations Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, Kwis Earthquake Engineering Elementary School Athletic Fields, Hacienda Heights, Project Management CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Performed field investigation and prepared the Geotechnical Investigation Report including seismic analysis and foundation design for the Applied Engineering Softwares: project. The project consists of construction of athletic OLIO, field including a concession, restrooms, storage building, CPeT-IGeoStudlo, toCADLPILEA rcGIILE, MathCT, , and Re ArcGIS, MathCAD, and Revit plaza, fire lane pavement, dual batting cages, and little Programming: MATLAB, PYTHON league fields. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing including Proctors, Direct Shears, Alverno High School, Modular Buildings Project, Consolidations, Sieve Analysis, Sierra Madre, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Performed field Moisture and Densities, R-Values, investigation for the project including percolation testing. Atterberg Limits, Expansion Index New modular classroom buildings improvements consist Field testing including soil and of the design of three modular buildings and an infiltration asphalt compaction testing basin. There will be a cut and fill of around 5 feet for this OVERALL EXPERIENCE: 7 years project. EXPERIENCE WITH CONVERSE. 5 years St. Francis High School, St. Francis High School Upgrade- Scoreboard Installation Project, La Canada-Flintridge, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Prepared the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project. The proposed project entails the addition of a scoreboard to the school's stadium facilities. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 9 La Canada Unified School District, Modernization Project, La Canada-Flintridge, CA. Senior Staff Engineer -Project Manager. Performed field investigation and prepared the Geotechnical Investigation Report including seismic analysis and foundation design for the project. Collaborated with design team to respond to CGS and DSA comments. Converse also oversees the geotechnical observation and testing and material testing and special inspection during construction. The project consists of modernization of approximately 20,000 square feet of existing permanent single -story buildings and new construction of a two-story modular classroom building and retaining wall. New Roads School, New Roads School Project, Santa Monica, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Performed field investigation and prepared Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project including seismic and liquefaction analysis. The new developments at the site will include a custom building for the Upper School Wellness Center and 2-story modular buildings for the Upper School Classroom Buildings. New Roads School, New Roads School Project, Santa Monica, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Performed field investigation and prepared Geotechnical Investigation Report for the project including seismic and liquefaction analysis. Previous studies at site identified that the site was previously used as clay pit area. These reports indicated that the pits were backfilled after cessation of the mining operations. The undocumented fill material extent and depth is as deep as 90 feet below ground surface. The new developments at the site will include a custom building for the Upper School Wellness Center and 2-story modular buildings for the Upper School Classroom Buildings. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Replacement of Stairs and New Elevator, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Prepared the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendation Letter to update the report to meet CBC 2019. The objective of the study was to update the seismic design parameters consistent with the 2019 edition of California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Chapter 16; Earthquake Design. LAUSD, Modernization Project at Shenandoah Elementary School, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Staff Engineer. Prepared the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendation Letter to update the report to meet CBC 2019 and perform percolation testing. The objective of the study was to update the seismic design parameters consistent with the 2019 edition of CBC, Title 24, Chapter 16; Earthquake Design, and provide percolation testing results. BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, JS34FhPIGh EMTE LAND SURVEYORS, AND GEOLOGISTS h.:'JE1'EEFi 10 ZC22 LXPI RAYI ON QATL LICENSING DLTAILS FOR- 94461 h'APR,;'- 31 n2' NAMr: AMKAv 1. toA 9AK LI r E N y E T YPE':.:. Y:1 }v U:NFFH CURRENT 6ATL' TIME LIL'LNSL STATUS-- CI'"Fi,< AOCIRF53 Ma'y 15. 7024 1.2.28. i 7 YM I N AP- 33n H"11NF (;f. j7+17 CR.AN T'.'_'.'M\-Y Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 10 Daniel Arteaga Senior Staff Engineer Mr. Arteaga has 36 years of field/engineering experience with commercial, residential, and industrial projects. He has office and field experience, including managing and coordinating field observations and compaction testing services. His field engineering duties have included observing foundation excavations, inspecting subdrain installations, performing field density testing, inspecting drilled and driven piles, and conducting manometer surveys. Mr. Arteaga has drilled, logged, and sampled exploratory borings and test pits for a wide variety of geotechnical engineering investigations. He has also developed laboratory testing programs, performed engineering analyses, and written various types of grading and post grading reports involving compacted fill, as -built grading, drilled and driven pile inspections, and shoring monitoring. Relevant Experience EDUCATION BS, Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1986 :%LVL. Imm I IVIVJ ■ Nuclear Gauge OVERALL EXPERIENCE: 36 years EXPERIENCE WITH CONVERSE:36 years Park Improvements Project, Los Angeles, CA. Staff Engineer. Converse provided soils and material testing services for the construction of new gymnasiums and general improvements for many Los Angeles County parks including Pamela County Park, Jackie Robinson Park, and Loma Alta County Park. Mt. San Antonio College, Athletic Complex East (Stadium), Walnut, CA. Field Technician. Converse performed a geotechnical investigation and is currently providing geotechnical observation, materials testing and inspection services for the Athletic Complex East at Mt. San Antonio College. The stadium will become an ADA compliant facility for the 2020 Olympic Track and Field Trails. The 144,000 square -foot facility will feature stadium seating to accommodate 11,000-25,000 spectators. The 144,000 square -foot facility will include a field house with locker rooms, two weight rooms, two lecture halls, team rooms, offices, food services, restrooms, a new parking lot, and a digitally -wired press box for global media. Newcomb Academy, Long Beach, CA. Senior Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Performed geotechnical observation and material testing and inspection services for new construction of Newcomb Academy Phase I and Phase 11. This project included the construction of a new campus comprised of administration offices, 46 classrooms, a library/media center, visual arts and music rooms, technology/computer center, auditorium, food services room and a gymnasium with a total square footage of 122,000 feet. Phase I consisted of the demolition, abatement and initial rough grading of the site. There was an 8 break between projects. Phase 11, consisted of new construction. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 11 Richard Browning High School, Long Beach, CA. Senior Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Performed geotechnical observation and material testing during the construction phase. The new school campus bid -build project included two-story classrooms, labs, administration, and cafeteria/multi-purpose room buildings on the perimeter, surrounding a central open courtyard. A covered amphitheater and dining area will provide common areas for student gatherings and athletic fields. Delevan Drive Elementary School Addition, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Performed geotechnical observation and material testing during the construction phase. The proposed project consisted of new a 2-story building with 15 classrooms with ADA POT access. The project included removing all portable classrooms & sanitary buildings, existing hot shack food service, portions of the existing playground pavement and slope, and constructing a retaining wall behind the area of new classroom building. Green Dot Animo Westside Charter Middle School, Inglewood, CA. Senior Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Performed geotechnical observation and material testing during the construction phase. Green Dot Leadership Public School was located at the corner of Freeman Avenue and 1111h Street in Inglewood, CA. The project consisted of construction of a multi -purpose room, gymnasium, classroom and administration buildings, trash enclosure, site walls and additional site work. Existing structures at the site had been demolished prior to rough grading. South Park Elementary School, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Performed geotechnical observation and material testing during the construction phase. The project consisted of new construction involving cafeteria, lunch shelter, covered walkway and associated facilities. Park Improvements Project, Los Angeles, CA. Staff Engineer. Converse provided soils and material testing services for the construction of new gymnasiums and general improvements for many Los Angeles County parks including Pamela County Park, Jackie Robinson Park, and Loma Alta County Park. City of Rosemead Garvey and Rosemead Aquatic Centers, Rosemead, CA. Staff Engineer/Field Technician. Provided geotechnical observation and field testing services during renovations to two aquatic centers located at Garvey Park and Rosemead Park. The project involved the demolition and replacement of swimming pools and associated facilities, hardscape and landscape. vvr OPF,R FRA I2ATOR MAIM =4 Daniel Arteaga Ix Pacific Nuclear Technology Co. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 12 3. WORK STATEMENT We understand the major tasks to include, but not limited to, the following: Task 1: Material Testing and Deputy Inspection Converse has the necessary experience and know-how of construction equipment, materials, methods, and workmanship for the specific work to be performed on the Project. We understand and interpret plans and specifications and we are familiar with the California Building Code, California Energy Code, City Quality Assurance Program, City Standards, and OSHA Construction Safety Orders. Converse has all required certifications and licenses for the types of testing and inspections that will be performed on this Project such as, but not limited to: Registered California Professional Engineer, ICC (for special inspectors for reinforced concrete, masonry, structural steel and welding), AWS (for certified welding inspectors), ACI (for concrete field testing technician and concrete strength testing technician), certified nuclear density gauge operators, non-destructive testing of railroad thermite and flash -butt welds. Converse is able to interact professionally with contractors, engineers, elected officials, property owners, business owners, and the public at large; coordinate with other city personnel; promote quality customer service; and respond promptly and courteously to requests. Converse follows verbal and written instructions and communicates clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. Converse will be responsible for providing complete Material Testing services during pre - construction, construction, and after construction of the project (project closeout). We will provide coordinated services with architects, engineers, City of Santa Clarita's staff, and general contractors. We will provide materials and equipment required for inspections, report writing, and related activities. All personal equipment (cell phones, computers, safety equipment, transportation, field equipment, supplies, etc.) needed to conduct the proposed inspection services will be provided by and stored by Converse as a part of our services. SUBTASK 1.1: PRE -CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Converse will be responsible for providing services during the pre -construction phase of the Project, including, but not limited to: Subtask A: Reviewing approved Plans and Specifications thoroughly prior to the Pre - construction meeting. Output: Converse will Coordinate a testing and inspection schedule with the City (Public Works Department) and the Contractor. Subtask B: Attending the pre -construction meeting. Output: Converse will take notes at the pre -construction meeting. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 13 SUBTASK 1.2: SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION Converse will be responsible for providing material testing and deputy inspection during construction throughout the duration of the Project, including, but not limited to: Subtask A: • Participating in conferences and progress meetings when requested by the City. • Ensuring Contractor's work complies with Contract Documents and approved contract change orders. • Monitoring of corrective actions taken by the Contractor needed to fix work that is not in compliance with Contract Documents. • Maintaining continuous 24 hour telephone accessibility during construction activity for emergency use. • Supporting enforcement that Contractor properly provides for the safety of the workmen. During inspections and monitoring of the work, if the Converse Inspector observes an unsafe situation, the inspector will notify the Contractor of the violation and provide written notification of such infraction to the Contractor. If the Contractor refuses to comply, the Converse Inspector will notify the Engineer, the City and Cal OSHA. Output: Converse will performing necessary materials testing and deputy inspection on the Project. Coordinating all material testing and deputy inspection consultant activities with the City and contractor. Subtask B: • Coordinating material testing and special inspections with the City and Contractor. The material testing services will include all those required to successfully complete the Project and as outlined in the City's QAP. Deputy inspections will include those specified in the Statement of Special Inspections on Sheet S0.2 of the project plans. The services will include, but not be limited to: o Concrete Formwork o Cast -In Anchors and Assemblies o Concrete sampling/testing Concrete placement o Structural Framing o Grout and Mortar Placement and Compression Testing o Reinforcing Steel & Placement o Masonry Materials, Placement, and Sampling o Structural Steel inspection o Epoxy & Mechanical Anchors o Compaction testing of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) o Base Material o Anchor Bolts Embedded in Concrete or Masonry Submitting all required final lab test reports to the City. Reviewing the contractor's submittals to ensure materials being placed conform with the project's specifications and delivered products. Ensuring that a Certificate of Compliance is furnished with each lot of manufactured and prefabricated materials delivered to the work site. The certified material on lot number and project number will be identified on the certificate and lot tags affixed or stenciled to the released materials. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\ProposakREVISIOW . REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 14 Output: • Converse will scan and upload inspection forms, inspection logs, progress reports, etc. into a City -approved database system into a City -approved database system. Converse will observe the following protocols: • Possess a vehicle and a mobile phone for immediate contact by the City and show proof of a valid California's driver's license, insurance, and required certifications. • It is understood that the Consultant Material Testers and Deputy Inspectors do not have the authority to allow changes or deviations from the Contract Plans and Specifications. • All proposed forms and filing system will be shown to and approved by the City Representative prior to construction phase. • When requested, assist in developing safety programs as required by their contract documents. • Present the City with a complete project close-out file of work effort performed during Material Testing and Deputy Inspection services. • It is understood that the extent of Converse's duties, responsibilities, and limitations of authority as a representative of the City during the construction will not be modified or extended without the written consent of the Public Works Director. Task 2: QSP Services The following Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) Services for a Risk -Level 2 Construction Project are required and include the following: Assumptions • All storms forecasted by NOAA as 50% or greater within the succeeding 48-hour period will be assumed to be Qualifying Events for the purposes of performing Pre -Storm inspections, 24-hour inspections, REAPS, and runoff sampling. • Where runoff sampling and analysis is described; all samples will be analyzed for pH and turbidity in the field within as short of time period as practical. Where exceedances are detected, resampling will occur. • The WDID No. will be obtained by the City. • The City will administer all of the project's SMARTS website activities. • All QSP directives will reference the section of the SWPPP where it's addressed. • The QSP will be an active member of the project's construction team whose contribution will add to the project's success. Their input and involvement will be highly valued. Minimum Requirements • A QSP will perform all the required activities. They will not be performed by someone being "supervised" by a QSP. • The specific QSP's certification(s), training history, sampling and analysis training and experience, and storm water inspection background will be provided for the project SWPPP before their first inspection. • All the QSP, inspection and monitoring requirements for a Risk Level 2 project described within the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\Page 15.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 15 and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Permit) will be adhered to. • All field instrument information will be included on each monitoring report, including: make, model, serial number, units, detection range, and resolution. • Sampling and analysis reports will include the date of equipment calibration, serial number(s) and expiration dates of calibration standards. • All monitoring equipment will be operated and calibrated per the manufacturer's instructions. • The inspection report format will be approved by the City before its implemented. • All photographs will be labeled date, time, compass orientation, and subject the photo is representing. Subtask: The QSP will follow all project -specific safety rules and will use all the required PPE; provide and maintain a project rain gage; and have field instruments to analyze pH and turbidity that meet the minimum Permit requirements. Output: Inspection reports will be provided by email to the City within 24 hours of the inspection. Runoff and run-on sampling and analysis results will be provided by email to the City within 24 hours of their completion. Subtask: Converse Will Perform the Following Inspections: • Post -Storm inspections 24-Hour inspection (once every 24 hours for all work days during a storm event) Quarterly inspections will be completed in January, April, July, and October. Where NALs are exceeded, the QSP will reinspect the project area for possible causes of the NAL exceedances. Output: Converse will perform weekly inspections and pre -storm inspections (for all storms forecasted as 50% or greater chance within 48 hours by NOAA). Converse Will Perform the Following Activities: • Maintain the On -Site SWPPP Map by documenting the site BMPs and conditions on the map. • Assemble and provide a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) as required. • Where no runoff is occurring during a storm event, the non -runoff condition will be recorded on the inspection report. • If the Daily Average for either or both of NALs is exceeded, the QSP will assemble and submit to the City by email an NAL Exceedance Report containing the details outlined in the Permit, Attachment D., I., 15., d., i-iii (page 19), within 48 hours of the measured exceedance. The QSP Services are proposed on a cost per week and assume an 18-month project schedule. • 78 -Weekly Inspections • 15 - Pre -Storm Inspections 25 - 24-hr Inspection (including sampling) 10 - Post -Storm Inspections Subtask: Converse will submit a draft Annual Report to the City by August 1 st Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\ProposakREVISIOW . Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 16 Output: Converse will sample stormwater runoff at each discharge location from the site. A minimum of three total samples will be taken and analyzed per work day per storm event day when runoff is present. When project run-on is present, Converse will sample, analyze, and document the run-on. Where the results of run-on and or runoff analysis exceed NAL thresholds for pH (<6.5, >8.5) and or turbidity (>250NTU), the QSP will notify the City representative as soon as possible. Task 3: Labor Compliance Services The labor compliance consultant will perform work under the supervision and direction of the City's Labor Compliance Specialist. Duties consist of all items of work necessary as identified below: • Review certified payroll records, confirming the accuracy of those records, and verify compliance of all state and federal required forms and submittals. • Conduct site visits which will include field interviews with all contractors, observation reports, and photos. • Meet with the City's Labor Compliance Specialist on a regular basis for updates and direction. Attendance at scheduled construction meetings may be required. Work will be dictated by the construction schedule and by coordination with the Labor Compliance Specialist and/or City Public Works Inspector, as necessary. • Return all paperwork to the City's Labor Compliance Program for storage upon project closeout. The work to be performed by the Consultant will be based on the procedures, guidelines, and standards required by California State Labor Code. The labor compliance services should be proposed on a cost per month and assume an 18-month project schedule. Subtask: Converse will coordinate with the Labor Compliance Specialist and / or City Public Works Inspector and attend scheduled construction meetings, as necessary. Output: Converse will investigate complaints and perform audits as needed, communicating with complainants, contractors, and other agencies. Task 4: Project File / Documentation Software Converse will propose and provide Procore cloud/web based Project documentation management software for the Project. The system will be capable of storing all team members' required Project information and be accessible after the Project ends or have the ability to download all information onto another electronic platform for audit and project file record requests. Training for all parties involved on the Project, troubleshooting / software support, document control setup, and electronic file turn over to the City of the system will be included. Subtask: Converse will provide training for all parties on the Project as well as troubleshooting / software support. Output: Electronic file turn over to the City of the system. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\ProposakREVISIOW . Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 17 4. REFERENCES Below we provide our most recently completed projects within the past three years of similar size and scope: Client Name: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Current Contact Information: Ms. Margaret Cooper, (818) 354-2889 Work Summary: Materials Testing at Various Sites Role of Key Project Team Members: Siva Sivathasan (PM), Babak Abbasi (PE), Jose Navarrete (Field Technician) Construction Cost: $600,000 Completion Date: Ongoing Client Name: Los Angeles County Sanitation District Current Contact Information: Mr. Bob Richardson, 562-908-4288 ext. 4316 Work Summary: On -Call Contract for Materials Testing Role of Key Project Team Members: Siva Sivathasan (PM), Babak Abbasi (PE), Jose Navarrete (Field Technician) Construction Cost: $500,000 Completion Date: Ongoing Client Name: City of Lancaster Current Contact Information: Ms. Erika Figueroa, (661) 723-6086 Work Summary: Materials Testing for 2021 Neighborhood Improvement Project Role of Key Project Team Members: Siva Sivathasan (PM), Babak Abbasi (PE), Jose Navarrete (Field Technician) Construction Cost: $72,505 Completion Date: September 26, 2022 Client Name: City of Hemet Current Contact Information: Mr. Anthony Flores, Z & K Consultants, (951) 310-7470 Work Summary: Gibbel Skate Park Materials Testing Role of Key Project Team Members: Hashmi Quazi (PM), Antonio Maciel (PE), Brian Kauffman (Field Technician), Bill Kowalski (Field Technician), Diego Garcia, (Field Technician) Construction Cost: $15,000 Completion Date: August 2023 Client Name: Santa Ana Unified School District Current Contact Information: Ms. Kathleen Gil, (714) 480-5349, x7534 Work Summary: Materials Testing at Various School Sites Role of Key Project Team Members: Hashmi Quazi (PM), Antonio Maciel (PE), Randy White (Field Technician) Construction Cost: $54,010 Completion Date: February 2023 Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 18 5. COST FILE The cost file is submitted in a separate envelope. It shows a lump sum cost estimate for each task identified. Each task is broken down by subtask as identified in the Scope of Work. The cost estimate for each subtask is broken down by classifications, providing hourly billing rates for personnel and the estimated total based on man-hour estimates. 6. STATEMENT OF OFFER AND SIGNATURE This proposal has been signed by Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, an individual authorized to bind Converse Consultants. It is a firm offer for a 90-day period. The proposed work will be performed at a "not -to -exceed" price. The City's standard contract (Attachment "A") is acceptable. We request no deviation therefrom. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\1. REV Response.docx isa(.,onverse Gons 1iii nts Geatechnical Engineering Eminentai & Groundwater ScienceInspectiecti on &Testing Services Presented By: Converse Consultants 717 South Myrtle Avenue Monrovia, California 91016 (626) 930-1275 ksivathasan@converseconsultants.com May 24, 2024 REVISED June 3, 2024 6 Converse Consultants Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Inspection & Testing Services May 23, 2024 Revised June 3, 2024 Ms. Jaclyn Abston City of Santa Clarita Purchasing Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 265 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: COST PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE MATERIALS TESTING David March Park City Project No. P4027 City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, State of California Converse Project No. 24-31-192-00 Dear Ms. Abston, Converse Consultants (Converse) appreciates the opportunity to submit this cost proposal for Materials Testing to the City of Santa Clarita (City) in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) CIP-23-24-P4027M, for which the City estimated the value at $250,000.00. Our cost proposal shows a lump sum cost estimate for each task identified. Each task is broken down by subtask as identified in the Scope of Work. The cost estimate for each subtask is broken down by classifications, providing hourly billing rates for personnel and the estimated total based on man-hour estimates. Our rates are prevailing wage compliant. All documentation of unit pricing or other cost breakdowns as outlined in this proposal supports the total proposed price. Please note other civil construction materials may need to be tested and Converse will do so as - needed. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (626) 930-1275 if you have any questions or wish to discuss this proposal in greater detail. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Sincerely, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Siva K. Sivathasan, PhD, PE, GE, DGE, QSD, F. ASCE Senior Vice President / Principal Engineer Encl: Schedule of Fees, General Conditions Dist: 1/Addressee via Email SKS/BA:ed 717 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 Telephone: (626) 930-1200 ♦ Facsimile: (626) 930-1212 ♦ www.converseconsultants.com Proposal to Provide Materials Testing Services David March Park City Project No. P4027 City Project No. CIP-23-24-P4027M City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA Revised June 3, 2024 Page 2 FEE ESTIMATE Converse proposes to perform the requested geotechnical engineering and materials testing for $250,000.00. Below is a detailed breakdown of these services: Field Services Costs Special Inspector/Concrete, Masonry/ACI and Batch Plant Hour r52 $145.00 $75,400.00 Special Inspector/Shop Welding Hour $145.00 $17,400.00 Special Inspector/Site Welding and Framing Hour 100 $145.00 $17,400.00 Special Inspector/Pull Torque, Ultrasonic Hour 60 $150.00 $9,000.00 Sample Pick -Up Hour 120 $50.00 $6,000.00 $125,200.00 Laboratory Testing Costs Compression Strength, Concrete Cylinders Test 100 $45.00 $4,500.00 Rebar Tensile and Bend Test 20 $100.00 $2,000.00 $6,500.00 Office Support Costs Office Support: Clerical/Dispatch Hour 60 $85.00 $5,100.00 Project Manager Hour 40 $170.00 $6,800.00 Principal Professional Hour 1 16 1 $225.00 1 $3,600.00 $15,500.00 Cost Summary Field Inspection and Testing Services $125,200.00 Laboratory Testing Costs $6,500.00 Office Support Costs $15,500.00 Contingency Testing and/or Inspection $102,800 $250,000.00 * Travel time will not be charged to the City for inspection and testing within 100 miles of the site. Converse Consultants K:\31-Geotech\2024\24-31-192, City of Santa Clarita, David March Park Materials Testing\Proposal\REVISION\2. Cost.docx CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Prevailing Wage Schedule of Fees Geotechnical Personnel Introduction It is the objective of Converse Consultants to provide its clients with quality professional and technical services and a continuing source of professional advice and opinions. Services will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2024. Hourly Charges for Personnel Staff assignments will depend on personnel availability, job complexity, project site location, and experience level required to satisfy the technical requirements of the project and to meet the prevailing standard of professional care. Field Technical Services (hourly rate including vehicle and equipment) Construction Inspector — ACl/ICC and/orAWS/CWI certified (concrete, post -tension, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing; includes concrete batch plant and local steel fabrication inspections) ............................... $145 DSAMasonry Inspector...........................................................................................................................................................145 Non -Destructive Testing Inspector (ultrasonic, magnetic particle, dye penetrant, skidmore, pull testing, torque testing, Schmidt hammer, and pachometer)..........................................................................................................150 Coating Inspector/Coring Technician.......................................................................................................................................150 Soils Technician (soil, base, asphalt concrete, and moisture emission testing).......................................................................145 SamplePick-Up.........................................................................................................................................................................60 Professional Services (consultation for field and office, if requested) StaffProfessional................................................................................................................................................................... $145 SeniorStaff Professional..........................................................................................................................................................155 ProjectProfessional.................................................................................................................................................................165 ProjectManager.......................................................................................................................................................................175 SeniorProfessional..................................................................................................................................................................175 PrincipalProfessional...............................................................................................................................................................225 PrincipalConsultant................................................................................................................................................................. 235 Laboratory Testing LaboratoryTechnician...................................................................................................................................................... Per Test (see Geotechnical Laboratory Testing and Materials Testing Services fee schedules.) LaboratorySupervisor............................................................................................................................................................ $100 Office Support Clerical/Word Processing......................................................................................................................................................... $90 Drafting....................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 CADOperator/Drafting Manager................................................................................................................................................95 Overtime and special shift rates for Field Services personnel are determined in accordance with Prevailing Wage law. Travel time to and from the job site will be charged at the hourly rates for the appropriate personnel. Expenses 1. Exploration expenses (drilling, trenching, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. 2. Travel and subsistence expenses (transportation, room and board, etc.) for individuals on projects requiring travel and/or living 50 miles away from the project site are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. 3. Automobile and truck expenses are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (rentals) or at the current IRS milage rate per mile for company -owned vehicles traveling between principal office and project. 4. Other out-of-pocket direct project expenses (aerial photos, long-distance telephone calls, permits, bonds, outside printing services, tests, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent. Invoices 1. Invoices will be submitted to the Client on a monthly basis, and a final bill will be submitted upon completion of services. 2. Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past -due thirty days from invoice date. In the event Client fails to make any payment to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work hereunder until said payment, together with a service charge at the rate of eighteen percent per annum (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) from the due date, has been received. Further, Converse may at its sole option and discretion refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Client in the event Client fails to pay Converse for services when said payments are due. 3. Client shall pay attorneys' fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount. General Conditions The terms and provisions of the Converse General Conditions are incorporated into this fee schedule as though set forth in full. If a copy of the General Conditions does not accompany this fee schedule, Client should request a copy from this office. Converse Consultants PW2024 Geotech CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Schedule of Fees — Materials Laboratory Testing Compensation for laboratory testing services will be based on rates in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. Our services will be performed in accordance with the General Conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2024. AGGREGATES Moisture Content, ASTM D2216.............................................. 25.00 Particle Size Analysis Coarse, ASTM C136, each ............................................... 120.00 Coarse and Fine, ASTM C136 & C137), each .................. 180.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127....................................... 115.00 Fine Aggregate, ASTM C128........................................... 175.00 Unit Weight per Cubic Foot, ASTM C29 ............................. 75.00 Soundness, Sodium or Magnesium, ASTM C88, each..... 550.00 Potential Alkali Reactivity, ASTM D289 ............................ 700.00 Freeze Thaw Soundness..................................................175.00 Los Angeles Abrasion, per class, ASTM C131, C535....... 375.00 Sand Equivalent, ASTM D2419........................................ 180.00 Lightweight Particles, ASTM C123, each .......................... 300.00 Clay Lumps & Friable Particles, ASTM C142, each .......... 290.00 Stripping Test, ASTM D1664, each .................................... 85.00 Organic Impurities, ASTM C40......................................... 140.00 Durability...................................................................... By Quote CONCRETE TESTS Laboratory Trial Batch, ASTM C192.................................. By Quote Laboratory Mix Design, Historical Data .............................. By Quote Compression Test, 6"x12" Cylinder, ASTM C39, each.............45.00 Lightweight Concrete Compression...................................................................... 45.00 Unit Weight.........................................................................45.00 Specimen Preparation, Trimming or Coring, each ................... 75.00 Bond Strength, ASTM C321 Prepared by Converse......................................................250.00 Prepared by Others..........................................................150.00 Core Compression Test, ASTM C12, each ............................ 120.00 Flexure Test, 6"x6" Beams, ASTM C78, each ........................ 130.00 Modulus of Elasticity, Static, ASTM C469, each .................... 275.00 Length Change, ASTM C157, 3 bars, 5 readings each, upto 26 days.................................................................... 550.00 Splitting Tensile, 6"x12" Cylinders, each ................................ 110.00 Field Concrete Control (sampling, slump, temperature, cast 4 cylinders, molds, cylinder pick-up, within 10 miles of office, stand-by extra), ASTM/UBC, hourly rate schedule, or each cylinder .................................................. 95.00 Field Concrete Control (same as above plus air content test), ASTM/UBC, each cylinder..................................................95.00 Hold Cylinder...........................................................................10.00 Cylinder Mold, sent to job site but not cast by Converse or returned to Converse............................................................5.00 MASONRY (ASTM C140, E447, UBC STANDARD 24-22) Moisture Content, as received, each ...................................... 105.00 Absorption, each......................................................................85.00 Compression, each..................................................................85.00 Shrinkage, ASTM C426, each...............................................250.00 Net Area and Volume, each ..................................................... 30.00 Masonry Blocks, per set of 9............................................... 1,500.00 Masonry Core Compression, each ......................................... 125.00 Masonry Core Shear, each....................................................245.00 Masonry Core Trimming, each ............................................... 150.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 8"x8"x16", each .............. 300.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 12"x16"x16", each .......... 425.00 Compression Test 2"x4" Mortar Cylinder, each ................................................ 45.00 3"x6" Grout Prisms, each .................................................... 45.00 2" Cubes, ASTM C109, each..............................................45.00 Castby Others......................................................................... 45.00 Mortar or Grout Mix Designs .............................................. By Quote FIREPROOFING TESTS Oven Dry Density, per sample ................................................. 80.00 MOISTURE EMISSION TEST Moisture Emission Test Kit......................................................85.00 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE Stability, Flow, and Unit Weight, ASTM D6927 .....................500.00 Marshall ASTM D1559, ASTM D2726...................................450.00 Measured Maximum Specific Gravity of Mix, ASTM D2041, Rice Method, each..........................................................350.00 Void Analysis of Cores or Marshall Specimens, Calculations Only, ASTM D3203, set of 2 or 3...................60.00 Laboratory Mixing of Asphalt & Concrete, per sample.............75.00 Complete Asphalt Concrete Mix Design Hveem or Marshall......................................................By Quote Extraction of Asphalt and Gradation, ASTM D2172, Method B, or California 310, including ash correction, each .............455.00 Extraction of Rubberized Asphalt & Gradation, each.............350.00 Specific Gravity, ASTM D2726 or ASTM D1188 Uncoated...........................................................................95.00 Coated.............................................................................125.00 Immersion-Compression.......................................................650.00 Particle Coating, ASTM D2489...............................................95.00 Stripping, ASTM D1664..........................................................85.00 Moisture or Volatile Distillates in Paving Mixtures, or Materials Containing Petroleum Products or By-Products.....................................................................350.00 Retained Strength, ASTM D1074/D1075, 6 specimens..... By Quote Retained Stability, Mil, Std, 520A, Method 104, 6 specimens................................................................By Quote CBR, ASTM D1883, including M/D Curve, 1 point ................400.00 Asphalt Temperature...............................................................15.00 STRUCTURAL STEEL Tensile Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each......................................60.00 Bend Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each.........................................60.00 Tensile Test #10 Bar or Greater, each..................................300.00 Tensile Test #14 Bar, each...................................................330.00 Rebar Coupler Tensile Test..................................................160.00 Tensile Test, Welded #9 Bar or Smaller, each ......................160.00 Tensile Test, Welded #10 Bar or Greater, each ....................300.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar, each.....................................330.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #9 Bar or Smaller, each................................................................................210.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #10 Bar or Greater, each................................................................................350.00 HIGH STRENGTH BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER TESTING Wedge Tensile Test, A490 Bolts Under 100,000 lbs., each................................................130.00 Over 100,000 lbs., each..................................................140.00 Wedge Tensile Test, A325 Bolts Under 100,000 lbs., each................................................160.00 Tensile Test, Anchor Bolts, tested with displacement transducers, each............................................................300.00 Nut Hardness, Proof & Cone Proof Load Test, each...............65.00 Washer Hardness, each..........................................................55.00 A325 or A490, Bolt Hardness Only, each................................55.00 Bolt A325 or A490 Wedge Tensile Under 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each.............................240.00 Over 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each...............................280.00 Bolt, Nut & Washer, all tests per set with bolts Under 100,000 lbs ...........................................................400.00 Over 100,000 lbs .............................................................500.00 See Schedule of Fees — Geotechnical Laboratory Testing for soil testing. Hourly rates are available upon request. Field Laboratory rates are available upon request. Listed unit rates are based upon the assumption that samples will be delivered to our laboratory at no cost to Converse. Converse Consultants MTS2024 "Via Email„ Balancing the Natural and Built Environment CCALLAHANksanta-clarita. com June 11, 2024 Ms. Carla Callahan City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Proposal for Additional Engineering Services David March Park Valencia, CA Psomas Proposal No. 24-0281R2 Dear Ms. Callahan: Psomas is submitting the attached proposal for professional services for the subject project. Based on our knowledge of the site and the information provided to us, we have developed the attached Scope of Services and associated fee to meet the project requirements, as we understand them, as described in Exhibit "A" and Schedule "A" respectively (attached). We look forward to working with you on this important project. Sincerely, PSOMAS eremy Johnson, PE, Project Manager JJ:bh Enclosures (9) — Exhibit "A": Scope of Services — Schedule "A": Fee Schedule — Hourly Rates — Billing Procedures — Exhibit `B" Anil Verma Proposal — Exhibit "C" PCLD Proposal — Exhibit "D" Ninyo & Moore Proposal — Exhibit "E" EcoKai Proposal (Optional Task) — Exhibit "F" Landscape Inspector Proposal EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Additional Engineering Services David March Park Valencia, CA Psomas Proposal No. 24-0281R2 June 11, 2024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Santa Clarita (client) is requesting additional services at the David March Park project located in Santa Clarita, CA. The civil engineering scope is to include construction support through the final close-out of the project, which will be provided by Psomas (consultant), Anil Verma (subconsultant) and PCLD (subconsultant). Anil Verma and PCLD's proposals are attached as Exhibit `B" and Exhibit "C," respectively. Ninyo & Moore (subconsultant) will be providing geotechnical, materials testing and special inspection services. Psomas will be providing field verification surveying services. Optional services are also provided which include QSP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Monitoring Services, Landscape Inspection Services, and Biological Monitoring. SCOPE OF WORK Psomas agrees to furnish and perform the various professional services pertinent to the project specifically outlined as follows: Construction Meetings and Support • Attend Pre -Construction Meeting. • Attend weekly jobsite meetings and job inspection visits. • Respond to RFI's and review submittals and shop drawings. • Prepare construction bulletins as needed. • Prepare construction correction notices as needed. • Assist with reviewing, analyzing, and advising the city on contract change order requests. • Perform final review and contribute to the punch list with the contractor. Psomas will provide access to Procore construction management software for the duration of the project. This will be provided at no charge to the City. Please note that Psomas will not manage the input of data into Procore and will not serve as construction manager for the project. As -Built Plan Consultant shall prepare as -built drawings upon completion of the project and acquire the contractor's daily red lined plans from the contractor and their subcontractors. Final Record Drawing will need to be both in electronic files (CAD and PDF) and hard copies. This subtask shall be noted as a separate line item. Geotechnical, Materials Testing and Special Inspection Services (Ninyo & Moore) Scope of work is outlined in Ninyo & Moore's proposal, attached, as Exhibit "D." EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Additional Engineering Services David March Park Valencia, CA Psomas Proposal No. 24-0281R2 June 11, 2024 Field Verification Surveying Field verification for staking and/or constructed improvements, as needed, and only as specifically requested by client. This work is to be executed in four (4) or eight (8) hour mobilizations of a two (2) person survey crew, for a total no greater than eighty (80) hours. Optional Services QSP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Monitoring (EcoKai) Scope of work is outlined in EcoKai's proposal, attached, as Exhibit "E." Landscape Inspection Services (Smith Landscape Management) Scope of work is outlined in Smith Landscape Management's proposal, attached, as Exhibit "F." Biological Monitoring (Psomas) Construction Monitoring — Nesting. In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Codes, and the Project Specifications, weekly nesting bird surveys will be conducted by a qualified Biologist when construction occurs during the nesting season. Construction is anticipated to begin in July; therefore, the Scope of Work includes up to nine weekly nesting bird surveys (July 1 through August 31, 2024). Each survey will include a three hundred (300) foot buffer for nesting birds/raptors; however, the survey area will be truncated where development blocks the line of sight from the project activities. If any nesting birds or raptors are found, the locations will be recorded with a GPS unit, or an iPad and a determination will be made on the nesting stage of the bird/raptor. If nesting birds/raptors are found, the Biologist will determine the appropriate protective buffer based on the location of the nest, sensitivity of the species, existing human activity in the surrounding area, and the type of work to be done in the vicinity of the nest. The protective buffer will be designated as an ESA and the Biologist will flag the limits of avoidance around any active nest(s) with flagging. Construction activities within the protective buffer will be delayed until the young have left the nest, or the nest is determined to no longer be active as determined by a qualified Biologist. An email summary of the results will be provided to the City of Santa Clarita following the completion each survey (i.e., within the same day). A Daily Monitoring Form will be prepared to document the results of each weekly survey and biological monitoring. The form will include: (1) survey time, temperature, cloud cover, and wind speed at the start and end of the survey; (2) representative photos of the survey area and construction activities that are occurring; (3) a list of wildlife species observed; (4) description and location of active nests found (including the species of shrub or tree that the nest was observed in) and recommended protective buffers; (5) description of how the buffers were flagged; (6) contractor compliance with nesting bird buffers and/or any issues noted; (7) recommendations for follow-up biological monitoring (if additional visits are needed to monitor nest status and/or project activities near nests); and (8) an exhibit showing active nest locations and their protective buffers. The Daily Monitoring Form will be delivered to the City of Santa Clarita via EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Proposal for Additional Engineering Services David March Park Valencia, CA Psomas Proposal No. 24-0281R2 June 11, 2024 email within 24 hours of completion of each visit. Any special status species observed will be reported to the CNDDB. Additionally, the Biologist will coordinate with construction contractor to point out active nests and their protective buffers and to discuss upcoming work activities near active nests. The Biologist will talk with the Contractor to identify any vegetation to be removed, when it will be removed, will inspect the vegetation prior to its disturbance, and will notify the Contractor on whether the vegetation is approved for removal or must be avoided. The Biological Monitor will monitor as needed during work throughout the nesting season. The Biological Monitor will discuss any issues that may arise with the Contractor and will record them in field notes. This Scope of Work includes up to three (3) additional visits for biological monitoring in addition to the nine (9) weekly monitoring visits described above, for a total of twelve (12) visits. If additional visits are needed, a budget augment may be requested. Upon completion of the biological monitoring effort, Psomas will prepare a Post -Monitoring Report to summarize the pre -construction and weekly nesting bird surveys and biological monitoring activities. The Post -Monitoring Report will include CNDDB forms, representative photos from monitoring, and an appendix with all Nesting Bird/Daily Monitoring Forms. This Scope of Work assumes one draft and one final version of the Post -Monitoring Report will be submitted in PDF format. Project Manageme . This task includes project management associated with environmental -related items. Psomas will attend meetings, as needed, to discuss the project. This task may include emails, conference calls, site meetings, and project management and preparation of supporting documentation. This task includes up to twelve (12) hours for the Environmental Project Manager. This time will be billed on a time and materials basis as needed. If more than twelve (12) hours is needed, a budget augment will be requested. SCHEDULE "A" FEESCHEDULE Proposal for Additional Engineering Services David March Park Valencia, CA Psomas Proposal No. 24-0281R2 June 11, 2024 Client agrees to pay Consultant as compensation for the professional services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the below schedule. Description Budget Engineering Services Construction Meetings and Support • Psomas (time and materials) $124,185 • Anil Verma (time and materials) $ 64,386 • PCLD (time and materials) $ 88,480 As -Built Plans • Psomas (fixed fee) $ 13,600 • Anil Verma (fixed fee) $ 17,789 • PCLD (fixed fee) $ 10,450 Geotechnical, Materials Testing and Special Inspection Services (Ninyo & Moore) (time and materials) $ 97,600 Field Verification Surveying (time and materials) $ 37,500 Engineering Services Subtotal $453,990 Optional Services QSP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Monitoring (EcoKai) (time and materials) $ 63,450 Landscape Inspection Services (Smith Landscape Management) (time and materials) $ 44,800 Biological Monitoring (Psomas) (time and materials) $ 34,546 Optional Services Subtotal $142 796 TOTAL FEE $596,786 • Services will be performed in accordance with the provisions of our current agreement of which Exhibit `A" and Schedule `A" will become part. • The attached Hourly Rate Schedule is valid through December 31, 2024. • This proposal is valid for period of 90 days, after which, consultant's proposed fees will be revaluated. P S 0 M A S 2024 FEE SCHEDULE Los Angeles and Valencia California Offices Engineering, Land Use Entitlements, and Surveying IN -OFFICE SERVICES Effective from January 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024 Administrative/Project Assistant $ 9S - $130 Drafter/Design Drafter $130 - $160 Civil Engineering Designer/Engineer $120 - $lSS Surveyor/Project Surveyor/GIS Specialist/Photogrammetrist $115 - $190 Planners/Assistant Planner/Expeditor/Senior Planner $120 - $200 Project Designer/Professional Engineer/Project Engineer $155 - $18S Sr. Project Engineer/Sr. Project Surveyor/Sr. GIS Specialist $18S - $225 Project Management $18S - $270 Principal/Director $240 - $340 SURVEY HOURLY RATES - FIELD SERVICES Effective from October 1, 2023 - September 30, 2024 One -Person Survey Party $240 Two -Person Survey Party $360 Three -Person Survey Party $465 Field Supervisor $193 Hourly rates for field survey parties include normal usage of field equipment and are fully equipped rates. Per Diem is calculated at current State Department of Transportation rates (or other appropriate Agency rate). SPECIAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER COSTS Effective from October 1, 2023- September 30, 2024 3D Laser Scanner (Static) $ 300 per day 3D Laser Scanner (Mobile Mapping System) $5,000 per day Standard computer and technology costs are incorporated into the hourly rates shown above. REIMBURSABLES Mileage at current IRS allowable rate and parking expenses incurred by office employees are charged at cost. Prints, plots, messenger service, subsistence, air travel, and other direct expenses will be charged at cost plus ten percent. The services of outside consultants will be charged at cost plus fifteen percent. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 135 percent of the standard hourly rates. Sundays and holidays will be charged at 170 percent of the standard hourly rates. Policies and Procedures The relationship with our client works best when there is a mutual understanding about fees and payment terms. You are encouraged to discuss with us any questions you may have concerning these policies. Billing The value of our services is determined primarily by the time spent on each client matter. Our time records are kept on a weekly basis and invoices are prepared every four or rive weeks, depending on our accounting calendar. Payments As there is a time lag between rendering professional services and mailing our bills, all invoices are due upon presentation. Any bills that are not paid within thirty days are classified as "delinquent," and a late charge of 1-1/2 % per month will be added. Work Stoppage Work will be stopped on any job that has invoices outstanding for more than 60 days. Due to the costs and inefficiencies that results from stopping and restarting a job, an additional "start-up charge" will be assessed. Retainers It is our policy to obtain an advance retainer from all new clients and from exiting clients under certain circumstances. Also, it occasionally may be appropriate to require an advance retainer after the commencement of a project or to require an increase in a prior retainer. This depends in part on our client's payment history and the scope of the work involved. Reimbursable Expenses Costs, other than time charges, are based on usage. Therefore, the cost of blueprinting, messenger service, transportation, and other specific job related costs are charges as "reimbursable expenses." Generally, these are a very small portion of the total cost of a project. If requested, we will provide a computer printout which details these costs. We do not provide any additional backup for these generally nominal expenses. PSOMAS F, U - rVii,4. �I/ Nick Tarditti, CFA Chief Financial Officer EXHIBIT "B" ANIL VERMA ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, PLUMBING ENGINEERING, AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION 'DAVID MARCH PARK PHASE II' IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (#CIP-22-23-P4027) City of Santa Clarita, California April 7, 2024 Client/Agency: City of Santa Clarita Client/Team: PSOMAS, Inc. Contact: Jeremy Johnson, PE Address: 27220 Turnberry Ln, Suite 190 Valencia, California 91355 Phone: (661) 705-4410 E-mail: jeremy.johnson@psomas.com GENERAL SUMMARY Project Understanding The City of Santa Clarita is expanding the existing David March Park to the City to build and create community. A key part of this development is improving the existing park and addition approximately 5 additional acres of open space amenities. The scope of work related to AVA includes the following: 1. Design of new restroom facilities (Architectural, Electrical, Plumbing, and Structural) 2. Canopy for Community Gathering Area (Architectural, Electrical, Plumbing, and Structural) 3. Covered Trash Enclosures / Receptacles (Architectural, Electrical, Plumbing, and Structural) 4. Electrical engineering design for the entire project It is our understanding that the work is to include: design and coordination with the City and community groups. SCHEDULE 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 5 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT Duration: See Schedule Subtask 5.1.1 Pre -Construction Meeting AVA's Project Manager and Project Architect will attend the Pre -Construction Meeting at the City. We will assist Psomas in drafting an agenda for distribution to and comments by the City's Project Manager. The meeting agenda will be finalized incorporating City comments. Meeting minutes will be prepared documenting decisions and action items agreed upon during the meeting, and will be distributed to the Project Development Team. OUTPUT: Participation at Pre -Construction Meeting, meeting agenda and meeting minutes. Subtask 5.1.2 Regular Jobsite Meetings and Job Observation Visits AVA will attend regular jobsite meetings and perform site observations of the construction. A total of four (4) architectural site visits, one (1) structural site visit, and seven (7) MEP site visits are assumed during the construction phase. OUTPUT: Attend jobsite meetings and provide site observations. City of Santa Clarita - David March Park Phase 11 Improvement Project Request for Proposal (RFP) CIP-22-23-P4027 Page 9 of 2 ANIL VERMA ASSOCIATES, INC. Subtask 5.1.3 RFI, CO, and CR Review When requested in writing by the City, we will review and respond to Requests for Information (RFIs), Change Requests (CR), Contractor progress payment requests, or Contract Change Orders (CCO). AVA will review and respond to RFIs, CRs, and COs. A total of twenty (20) architectural RFIs, six (6) structural RFIs, and eighteen (18) MEP RFIs are assumed during the construction phase. OUTPUT. Review and respond to RFIs, CRs, and COs. Review comments will be provided to the City in PDF and hard copyformat. Subtask 5.1.4 Shop Drawing and Submittal Review The project team will review shop drawings and submittals for the project, as requested by the City. Shop drawings and submittals will be reviewed for conformance with the project bid documents. A total of ten (10) architectural submittals, three (3) structural submittals, and twelve (12) MEP submittals are assumed during the construction phase. OUTPUT. Review and respond to Shop Drawings and Submittals. Review comments will be provided to the City in PDF and hard copy format. Subtask 5.1.7 Final Site Walk and Punch list AVA will complete a final site walk at substantial completion of construction. The site walk will be performed with the City Project Manager or Construction Inspector. AVA will create a comprehensive list of items n e e d e d to be complete to meet all project permit requirements and design objectives. OUTPUT. Final site walk and punch list items to be completed. Subtask 5.2 Record Drawings and Project Closeout Upon completion of the construction contract, AVA will prepare record drawings by updating the original project "as- advertised" plan sheets showing changes that occurred during construction. Record drawings will be prepared by transferring the updates from red -marked plans received from the City and markups recorded by the project team during construction. The record drawings will be completed in the as -advertised project CADD AutoCAD files. "Record Drawing" cells will be included on each plan sheet and updates will be clouded to provide distinction from the original design. OUTPUT. • One (1) 11 "x17" set of record drawings for submittal to City. • One set of final record drawings in PDF format. • One set of record drawing CADD files in AutoCAD 2010 format. City of Santa Clarita - David March Park Phase 11 Improvement Project Request for Proposal (RFP) CIP-22-23-P4027 Page 2 of 2 TASK Construction Support - Optional Task Construction Meetings and Support SITE VISITS / PUNCHUST(5 Arch, 2 Struct, 8 MEP); RFIs: (20 Arch, 6 Stuct, 18 MEP); SUBMITTALS: (10 Arch, 3 Struct, 12 MEP) As -Built Plans Assume minor changes. Limited to hours shown. Total Hours and AVA AVA AVA COFFMAN (Electrical Sub) (Architect-1) (Plumbing) (Stmctump a a a m - ti E c a c = E - G GE a` - E E a a a _ a L$17 INDIRECT 229 195 150 148 110 229 298 200 170 148 248 229 152 110 250 175 165 COSTS TASKTOTAL 20 4 128 20 4 96 4 12 32 4 30 $ $ 64,386 4 8 28 4 10 18 1 20 4 12 $ - $ 17,789 EXHIBIT "C" awiisiftm lkl_�_ Pacific Coast Land Design, Inc. Landscape Architecture • Urban Design • Environmental Planning 461 East Main Street, Ventura, CA 93001 805.644.9697 www.pc-ld.com DAVID MARCH PARK PHASE II SCOPE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES May 29th, 2024 Proiect Understanding - Construction Support Construction administration tasks listed below and defined in the scope and fee table are estimated hourly services based on the expected number of 396 Contractor 'Working Days' with an intensive 36 weeks for landscape specific construction administration. All construction phase services provided will be billed at the regular office rates not to exceed the lump sum total listed for Task 5.1 and 5.2. Should additional construction administration hourly services be required, they will first be authorized by the Prime Consultant and City project manager. Proiect Understanding Pacific Coast Land Design (PCLD) understands that the City of Santa Clarita is seeking a Scope and Fee for Preliminary Design and PS&E Services based on the David March Park Phase II Master Plan. PCLD will be engaged as a sub -consultant to the project Prime Civil Engineer, with a major focus on the Preliminary Design, Public Outreach, and Construction Documents tasks. Based on the Park Master Plan, the Preliminary Design process will start with park program confirmation, and in coordination with the PDT PCLD will develop design for park amenities, hardscapes, fences, walls, ball fields & spectator areas, shade structures, picnic areas, recreation courts, planting, and irrigation. 3D modeling will be utilized throughout the design process as a tool in stakeholder and public engagement. Public Engagement will include two Open House style meetings with opportunities for public involvement in selection of park component materials and colors and additional City stakeholder meetings. Public Outreach Exhibit materials will include materials boards, precedent images, illustrative plans, renderings, planting palette, shade structure options, and engagement boards. Following the approval of the Preliminary Design, PCLD will begin work on the 60%, 90%, 100% and Final PS&E package. The PS&E package includes development and submittal of the Construction Documents, review, revision, and Bid Assistance from PCLD. Most of the work will be focused on Hardscape, Amenities, Planting, Irrigation and Detail drawings in coordination with the PSOMAS team and with an expected final submittal in March 2024. 22-053 DAVID MARCH PARK PH 11 SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Preliminary Investigation 1.1 Kickoff Meeting and Field Reconnaissance Attend kickoff meeting and visit site to assess existing conditions. 1.2 Document Research and Review Review available reports, maps, data, and applicable previous plans. 1.3 Survey 1.4 Geotechnical & Soils Reports 1.5 Preliminary Design Phase • Compile a comprehensive site base plan that integrates the site survey, existing utility as-builts, and geotechnical borings • Review the existing topography, existing park improvements, and existing utilities to understand the site constraints and grading challenges (PCLD to provide opportunities and constraints plan) • Create a preliminary site plan showing the size and relationship of the baseball field, parking lot, restroom/storage building, pedestrian circulation, and site furnishings. Concepts for the baseball field, restroom and community gathering area will be created and presented to the PDT (PCLD to lead preliminary plan in coordination with PDT) • Prepare a preliminary grading and drainage plan based on the preliminary site plan showing field, parking lot, and building elevations. A preliminary earthwork study will be provided to assist in costs and decision making (PCLD to assist Prime with grading study) • Develop preliminary stormwater treatment strategies including size and location of proposed infiltration BMPs (PCLD to assist with stormwater BMP selection and location) • Develop preliminary sports field lighting location and sizing based on photometrics studies provided by Musco (PCLD to coordinate plans with MUSCO) • Develop preliminary planting plans showing the planting patterns, textures, materials, and colors for the project (PCLD to lead) • Prepare a preliminary estimate of probable construction cost based on the program established in the preliminary design (PCLD to assist Prime) Task 2: CEQA Activities 2.1 Initial Study, Project Scoping, and Native American Engagement Plan Coordination and Review (PCLD to assist) 2.2 Technical Studies 2.3 Assemble Appropriate CEQA Document Based on the Description, Impacts and Mitigation Task 3: Proiect Management 3.1 Monthly PDT Meetings Attend PDT meetings (PCLD assumes 16) 3.2 Monthly Progress Reports Progress Reports (PCLD to assist) 3.3 Schedule Detailed Project Schedule (PCLD to assist Prime) 3.4 Quality Control 22-053 DAVID MARCH PARK PH 11 SCOPE OF SERVICES PCLD to provide Quality Control for all outgoing design communication for: Landscape, Hardscape, Irrigation, Amenities, Sports Fields, and Shade Structures 3.5 Public Engagement • Public Engagement Strategy City Staff Internal Meeting (PCLD to attend) • Public Meeting # 1 - Master Plan Open House (PCLD to lead) • Public Meeting #2 - Preliminary Plan Open House (PCLD to lead) • Optional Additional Approvals Meeting (PCLD to attend, assume one meeting) • Outreach Exhibit production, including materials boards, precedent images, illustrative plans, renderings, planting palette, playground options, shade structure options, and engagement boards (PCLD to lead) Task 4: Construction Documents 4.1 Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) • 60% PS&E Plans o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Plan o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Details o Irrigation Plan o Irrigation Details o Irrigation Calculations o Existing Tree Protection Plan o Planting & Sports Field Plan o Planting & Sports Field Details o Outline Specifications (PCLD to provide list to Prime) o Cost Estimate (PCLD to assist Prime) 90% PS&E Plans o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Plan o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Details o Irrigation Plan o Irrigation Details o Irrigation Calculations o Existing Tree Protection Plan o Planting & Sports Field Plan o Planting & Sports Field Details o Outline Specifications (PCLD to provide list to Prime) o Cost Estimate (PCLD to assist Prime) 100% PS&E Plans o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Plan o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Details o Irrigation Plan o Irrigation Details o Irrigation Calculations o Existing Tree Protection Plan o Planting & Sports Field Plan o Planting & Sports Field Details o Outline Specifications (PCLD to provide list to Prime) o Cost Estimate (PCLD to assist Prime) • Final PS&E Plans o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Plan o Hardscape, Signage & Amenities Details o Irrigation Plan 22-053 DAVID MARCH PARK PH 11 SCOPE OF SERVICES o Irrigation Details o Irrigation Calculations o Existing Tree Protection Plan o Planting & Sports Field Plan o Planting & Sports Field Details o Outline Specifications (PCLD to provide list to Prime) o Cost Estimate (PCLD to assist Prime) 4.1.1 3D Rendering and Video Animation 0 3D Modeling (PCLD to lead development of 3D model in parallel with the design process) 0 3D Renderings (PCLD to lead production of 3D renderings) o Animated Rendering Video (PCLD to lead production of 3D park flythrough) 4.1.2 Sustainability Certification a. Sustainability Certification - Preliminary Evaluation b. Sustainability Certification - Documentation & Clarification 4.2 Plan Approvals and Permits • Plan Check Approvals (PCLD to assist Prime with documentation) • Fuel Mod Plan 4.3 Bid Meetings and Support • Pre -Bid Meeting (PCLD to attend) • Respond to Bidders questions (PCLD to assist) Task 5: Construction Support 5.1 Construction Meetings and Support 18 Months (396 Working Days) 5.1.1 Pre -Construction Meeting (PCLD to attend) o Attend the pre -construction meeting; and attend weekly scheduled construction site meetings. 5.1.2 Attend weekly jobsite meetings and job inspection visits o Assume 20 in person meetings and 78 weekly OAC call -in meetings 5.1.3 Respond to RFI's and review submittals and shop drawings o Review and respond to Request for Information (RFI), submittals and shop drawings within 5 working days from the time of notice. 5.1.4 Prepare construction correction notices as needed o Review and respond to construction change notices within 5 working days from the time of notice. 5.1.5 Assist with Change Order Requests o Review design change order requests and prepare new design plans as needed. 5.1.6 Monthly progress report meetings (see 5.1.2) o Included in 5.1.2 meetings 5.1.7 Perform final review and punch list (PCLD to assist Prime) o Perform the final inspection by Consultant's Project Manager and Architect of Record to develop a punch list for the contractor to complete. 5.2 As -Built Plans 22-053 DAVID MARCH PARK PH 11 SCOPE OF SERVICES 5.2.1 As -Built Plans o Final Record Drawings ASSUMPTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES Supplemental Services are beyond the scope of the basic Scope of Services, and when requested in writing by the Client, shall entail additional compensation beyond the Compensation stated herein. Supplemental Services to this Agreement expressly include but are not limited to: • Additional Meetings or Agency submittals separate from those listed above • Public Agency presentations or hearings in addition to those listed above • Public engagement presentations in addition to those listed above • Survey and Geotechnical exploration • Architectural Services • Structural Engineering Services • Electrical Engineering and other engineering support services • Hazardous material evaluation / removal • Environmental or Biological Studies • Private property improvements *See Costed Scope and Fee Table on the following page for detailed cost breakdown by design task and sub -task. Respectfully Submitted By ris Hort , Senior Associate California State Landscape Architect Lic #6783 22-053 DAVID MARCH PARK PH 11 SCOPE OF SERVICES STAFFING PCLD (Landscape Architect Sub) 2 M Item TASK M C a U N 0 � a c o TOTAL HOURS LABOR COST INDIRECT COSTS TASK TOTAL 190 165 130 110 Task 5 Construction Support - Optional Task 3s 378 202 28 646 Task 5.1 Construction Meetings and Support 396 Working Days 36 364 166 0 566 $ 88,480 5.1.1 Pre -Construction Meeting (PCLD to attend) 4 4 8 $ 1,180 $ $ 1,180 5.1.2 Attend weekly jobsite meetings and job inspection visits 24 236 70 330 $ 52,600 $ $ 52,600 5.1.3 Respond to RFI's and review submittals and shop drawings 12 60 48 120 $ 18,420 $ $ 18,420 5.1.4 Prepare construction correction notices as needed 24 1 12 36 $ 5,520 $ $ 5,520 5.1.5 Assist with Change Order requests 32 24 56 $ 8,400 $ $ 8,400 5.1.6 Monthly Progress report meetings (see 5.1.2) 0 $ $ $ - 5.1.7 Perform final review and punch list (PCLD to assist Prime) 8 8 16 $ 2,360 $ $ 2,360 Task 5.2 As -Built Plans 1 2 14 36 28 80 $ 10,450 As -Built Plans 1 2 14 36 28 80 $ 10,450 $ $ 10,450 Total Hours and Fees 38 378 202 28 6467 $ 98,930 $ $ 98,930 /Yinyo&*nnre EXHIBIT "D" Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants June 11, 2024 Project No. 212176001 Mr. Jeremy Johnson Psomas 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, California 90071 Subject: Revised Proposal for Geotechnical, Materials Testing and Special Inspection Services David March Park Phase II Improvements Project Santa Clarita, California Project No. P4027 References: Ninyo & Moore, 2023, Geotechnical Evaluation, David March Park Phase II Improvements Project, 28310 Via Joyce Drive, Santa Clarita, California, dated April 21. Ninyo & Moore, 2024, Supplemental Recommendations —Auxiliary Parking Lot and Exercise Stairs, David March Park Phase II Improvements Project, 28310 Via Joyce Drive, Santa Clarita, California, dated February 22. Dear Mr. Johnson: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this revised proposal for geotechnical, materials testing and special inspection services during construction of the David March Park Phase II Improvements Project located at 28310 Via Joyce Drive in Santa Clarita, California. We have revised this proposal at your request to exclude special inspection and materials testing based on a recently issued City of Santa Clarita Request for Proposal. Based on our review of the project plans and our previous work at the site, we understand that the project will generally consist of a new Restroom building, shade structures, picnic areas, fitness area, play structures, basketball court, masonry retaining wall, three parking lots, three art sculpture foundations, water main pipeline, storm drain pipeline, sewer pipeline, lighting, pole foundations, concrete stairways, concrete headwall structure. The parking lots will be asphalt concrete (AC) over aggregate base. The storm drain pipe will be 80 linear feet of 24-inch diameter HDPE pipe. The lighting includes drilled pier foundations for 6 Muscoe Lighting Poles. SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on our conversations with Psomas, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience with similar projects, we propose to provide the following scope of services: • Project coordination, management and technical support including review of the project geotechnical reports, plans and specifications, work scheduling and distribution of test data. • Attendance at pre -construction meetings and as -requested field meetings. • Field Senior Project Engineer/Geologist services for observation of remedial excavation bottoms and foundation excavations. Written supplemental recommendations will be provided as needed. 475 Goddard, Suite 200 1 Irvine, California 92618 1 p. 949.753.7070 1 www.ninvoandmoore.com • Field Technician services to provide observation, sampling and testing during earthwork, building pad preparation, trench backfill, subgrade preparation, aggregate base placement, and AC pavement operations. Field density tests will be performed to evaluate the Contractor's compaction efforts. • Preparation of daily reports, test data sheets, and field memoranda to document the items inspected and tested. These will be provided to the City of Santa Clarita representative in lieu of a Final As -Graded Compaction Report. • Preparation of the Rough Grade Certification Letter at the completion of grading. • Laboratory testing, including proctor density, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, AC Hveem maximum density, AC oil extraction and AC gradation. ASSUMPTIONS Based on our project understanding, the following assumptions have been made in the preparation of our scope of services: • Our services will be coordinated and scheduled on an as -needed basis, as requested by our client's authorized field representative. • Temporary power to the onsite storage bin will be provided by others. This is for equipment battery charging purposes only that may use a standard outlet located nearby. • Preparation of a detailed Final As -Graded Compaction Report will not be requested. • Our services are subject to prevailing wage requirements. • Specialty Inspector and materials testing services for concrete, masonry and steel construction will be performed by others. ESTIMATED FEE We propose to provide our services on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees. Our estimated fee for the scope described herein is presented in the attached Table 1. Ninyo & Moore appreciates the opportunity to provide this proposal and we look forward to working with you. Respectfully submitted, NINYO & MOORE v f Matthew R. Harrell, PG, CEG, QSD/P Senior Geologist M R H/A R/scs Alfredo ' ino" Rodriguez Principal/Construction Services Attachments: Table 1 — Breakdown of Estimated Fee — Geotechnical Services Schedule of Fees Ninyo & Moore I David March Park Phase 11 Improvements Project, Santa Clarita, California 1212176001 1 June 11, 2024 Senior Staff Geologist/Engineer Senior Field Technician - Sitework and Building Pad Senior Field Technician -Trench and Structure Backfill Field Technician - Subgrade, Aggregate Base and AC Onsite Temporary Storage Bin Field Vehicle and Equipment Proctor Density D 1557, D 698, CT 216, & AASHTO T-180 AC Hveem Maximum Density AC Extraction and Gradation R-Value Sand Equivalent, D 2419, CT 217 Sieve Analysis, D 422, CT 202 Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist Geotechnical/Environmental/Assistant 32 hours 230 hours 300 hours 100 hours 6 mos. 630 hours 4 tests 2 tests 2 tests 2 tests 4 tests 4 tests 10 hours 40 hours 17 hours @ $ 150.00 /hour @ $ 108.00 /hour @ $ 108.00 /hour @ $ 103.00 /hour @ $ 240.00 Imo @ $ 15.00 /hour Subtotal @ $ 220.00 /test @ $ 225.00 /test @ $ 250.00 /test @ $ 375.00 /test @ $ 125.00 /test @ $ 145.00 /test Subtotal /hour @ $ 195.00 @ $ 185.00 /hour @ $ 80.00 /hour Subtotal $ 4,800.00 $ 24,840.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 1,440.00 $ 9,450.00 $ 83,230.00 $ 880.00 $ 450.00 $ 500.00 $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 580.00 $ 3,660.00 1 $ 1,950.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 10,710.00 Ninyo & Moore I David March Park Phase 11 Improvements Project, Santa Clarita, California 1212176001 I CA13 I June 11, 2024 Professional Staff Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist/Certified Industrial Hygienist $ 195 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist $ 190 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist $ 185 Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist $ 175 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist $ 150 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist $ 145 GIS Analyst $ 125 Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator $ 103 Field Staff Certified Asbestos/Lead Technician $ 185 Field Operations Manager $ 125 Nondestructive Examination Technician (LT, MT, LP) $ 119 Supervisory Technician $ 115 Special Inspector (Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel, Welding, and Fireproofing) $ 109 Senior Technician $ 108 Technician $ 103 Administrative Staff Information Specialist $ 85 Geotechnical/Environmental/Laboratory Assistant $ 80 Data Processor $ 75 Other Charges Concrete Coring Equipment (includes technician) $ 190/hr Anchor Load Test Equipment (includes technician) $ 190/hr GPR Equipment $ 180/hr Inclinometer $ 100/hr Hand Auger Equipment $ 80/hr Rebar Locator (Pachometer) $ 25/hr Vapor Emission Kit $ 65/kit Nuclear Density Gauge $ 12/hr X-Ray Fluorescence $ 70/hr PID/FID $ 25/hr Air Sampling Pump $ 10/hr Field Vehicle $ 15/hr Expert Witness Testimony $ 450/hr Direct Expenses Cost plus 15 % Special equipment charges will be provided upon request. For field and laboratory technicians and special inspectors, overtime rates at 1.5 times the regular rates will be charged for work performed in excess of 8 hours in one day Monday through Friday and all day on Saturday. Rates at twice the regular rates will be charged for all work in excess of 12 hours in one day, all day Sunday and on holidays. Field technician and special inspection hours are charged at a 4-hour minimum, 4 he, Hours charged will be limited to onsite time only and does not include travel, as long as the storage bin is onsite. Invoices are payable upon receipt. A service charge of 1.5 percent per month may be charged on accounts not paid within 30 days. Our rates will be adjusted in conjunction with the increase in the Prevailing Wage Determination during the life of the project, as applicable. The terms and conditions are included in Ninyo & Moore's Work Authorization and Agreement form. Ninyo & Moore I David March Park Phase 11 Improvements Project, Santa Clarita, California 1212176001 1 June 11, 2024 CA13 SOILS CONCRETE Atterberg Limits, D 4318, CT 204 $ 170 Compression Tests, 6x12 Cylinder, C 39 $ 35 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), D 1883 $ 550 Concrete Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 300 Chloride and Sulfate Content, CT 417 & CT 422 $ 175 Concrete Mix Design, per Trial Batch, 6 cylinder, ACI $ 850 Consolidation, D 2435, CT 219 $ 300 Concrete Cores, Compression (excludes sampling), C 42 $ 120 Consolidation, Hydro -Collapse only, D 2435 $ 150 Drying Shrinkage, C 157 $ 400 Consolidation - Time Rate, D 2435, CT 219 $ 200 Flexural Test, C 78 $ 85 Direct Shear - Remolded, D 3080 $ 350 Flexural Test, C 293 $ 85 Direct Shear- Undisturbed, D 3080 $ 300 Flexural Test, CT 523 $ 95 Durability Index, CT 229 $ 175 Gunite/Shotcrete, Panels, 3 cut cores per panel and test, ACI $ 275 Expansion Index, D 4829, IBC 18-3 $ 190 Lightweight Concrete Fill, Compression, C 495 $ 80 Expansion Potential (Method A), D 4546 $ 170 Petrographic Analysis, C 856 $ 2,000 Geofabric Tensile and Elongation Test, D 4632 $ 200 Restrained Expansion of Shrinkage Compensation $ 450 Hydraulic Conductivity, D 5084 $ 350 Splitting Tensile Strength, C 496 $ 100 Hydrometer Analysis, D 422, CT 203 $ 220 3x6 Grout, (CLSM), C 39 $ 55 Moisture, Ash, & Organic Matter of Peat/Organic Soils $ 120 2x2x2 Non -Shrink Grout, C 109 $ 55 Moisture Only, D 2216, CT 226 $ 35 Moisture and Density, D 2937 $ 45 ASPHALT Permeability, CH, D 2434, CT 220 $ 300 Air Voids, T 269 $ 85 pH and Resistivity, CT 643 $ 175 Asphalt Mix Design, Caltrans (incl. Aggregate Quality) $ 4,500 Proctor Density D1557, D 698, CT 216, AASHTO T-180 $ 220 Asphalt Mix Design Review, Job Spec $ 180 Proctor Density with Rock Correction D 1557 $ 340 Dust Proportioning, CT LP-4 $ 85 R-value, D 2844, CT 301 $ 375 Extraction, % Asphalt, including Gradation, D 2172, CT 382 $ 250 Sand Equivalent, D 2419, CT 217 $ 125 Extraction, % Asphalt without Gradation, D 2172, CT 382 $ 150 Sieve Analysis, D 6913, CT 202 $ 145 Film Stripping, CT 302 $ 120 Sieve Analysis, 200 Wash, D 1140, CT 202 $ 100 Hveem Stability and Unit Weight D 1560, T 246, CT 366 $ 225 Specific Gravity, D 854 $ 125 Marshall Stability, Flow and Unit Weight, T 245 $ 240 Thermal Resistivity (ASTM 5334, IEEE 442) $ 925 Maximum Theoretical Unit Weight, D 2041, CT 309 $ 150 Triaxial Shear, C.D, D 4767, T 297 $ 550 Moisture Content, CT 370 $ 95 Triaxial Shear, C.U., w/pore pressure, D 4767, T 2297 per pt $ 450 Moisture Susceptibility and Tensile Stress Ratio, T 238, CT 371 $ 1,000 Triaxial Shear, C.U., w/o pore pressure, D 4767, T 2297 per pt $ 350 Slurry Wet Track Abrasion, D 3910 $ 150 Triaxial Shear, U.U., D 2850 $ 250 Superpave, Asphalt Mix Verification (inci. Aggregate Quality) $ 4,900 Unconfined Compression, D 2166, T 208 $ 180 Superpave, Gyratory Unit Wt., T 312 $ 100 Superpave, Hamburg Wheel, 20,000 passes, T 324 $ 1,000 MASONRY Unit Weight sample or core, D 2726, CT 308 $ 100 Brick Absorption, 24-hour submersion, 5-hr boiling, 7-day, C 67 $ 70 Voids in Mineral Aggregate, (VMA) CT LP-2 $ 90 Brick Compression Test, C 67 $ 55 Voids filled with Asphalt, (VFA) CT LP-3 $ 90 Brick Efflorescence, C 67 $ 55 Wax Density, D 1188 $ 140 Brick Modulus of Rupture, C 67 $ 50 Brick Moisture as received, C 67 $ 45 AGGREGATES Brick Saturation Coefficient, C 67 $ 60 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles, C 142 $ 180 Concrete Block Compression Test, 8x8x16, C 140 $ 70 Cleanness Value, CT 227 $ 180 Concrete Block Conformance Package, C 90 $ 500 Crushed Particles, CT 205 $ 175 Concrete Block Linear Shrinkage, C 426 $ 200 Durability, Coarse or Fine, CT 229 $ 205 Concrete Block Unit Weight and Absorption, C 140 $ 70 Fine Aggregate Angularity, ASTM C 1252, T 304, CT 234 $ 180 Cores, Compression or Shear Bond, CA Code $ 70 Flat and Elongated Particle, D 4791 $ 220 Masonry Grout, 3x3x6 prism compression, C 39 $ 45 Lightweight Particles, C 123 $ 180 Masonry Mortar, 2x4 cylinder compression, C 109 $ 35 Los Angeles Abrasion, C 131 or C 535 $ 200 Masonry Prism, half size, compression, C 1019 $ 120 Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve by Washing, C 117 $ 90 Masonry Prism, Full size, compression, C 1019 $ 200 Organic Impurities, C 40 $ 90 Potential Alkali Reactivity, Mortar Bar Method, Coarse, C 1260 $ 1,250 REINFORCING AND STRUCTURAL STEEL Potential Alkali Reactivity, Mortar Bar Method, Fine, C 1260 $ 950 Chemical Analysis, A 36, A 615 $ 135 Potential Reactivity of Aggregate (Chemical Method), C 289 $ 475 Fireproofing Density Test, UBC 7-6 $ 90 Sand Equivalent, T 176, CT 217 $ 125 Hardness Test, Rockwell, A 370 $ 80 Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, T 27, C 136 $ 120 High Strength Bolt, Nut & Washer Conformance, Sieve Analysis, Fine Aggregate (including wash), T 27, C 136 $ 145 per assembly, A 325 $ 150 Sodium Sulfate Soundness, C 88 $ 450 Mechanically Spliced Reinforcing Tensile Test, ACI $ 175 Specific Gravity and Absorption, Coarse, C 127, CT 206 $ 115 Pre -Stress Strand (7 wire), A 416 $ 170 Specific Gravity and Absorption, Fine, C 128, CT 207 $ 175 Reinforcing Tensile or Bend up to No.11, A 615 & A 706 $ 75 Structural Steel Tensile Test: Up to 200,000 lbs., A 370 $ 90 ROOFING Welded Reinforcing Tensile Test: Up to No.11 bars, ACI $ 80 Roofing Tile Absorption, (set of 5), C 67 $ 250 Roofing Tile Strength Test, (set of 5), C 67 $ 250 Special preparation of standard test specimens will be charged at the technician's hourly rate. Ninyo & Moore is accredited to perform the AASHTO equivalent of many ASTM test procedures. Ninyo & Moore 1 2021 Laboratory Testing CA13 EXHIBIT "E" EcoKai Environmental, Inc. Jeremy Johnson, PE Sr. Project Manager/Vice President PSOMAS 27220 Turnberry Lane, Suite 190 Valencia, CA 91355 May 17, 2024 via email Subject: Proposal to Provide Professional Services for Risk Level 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Compliance at David March Park, Santa Clarita, California Mr. Johnson, EcoKai is pleased to provide our scope and cost for turn -key professional QSP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) monitoring services for the approximately 9.13-acre David March Park Project in Santa Clarita, California. EcoKai understands that the contract period will be from July 2024 through December 2025 (18 months) based on information provided by PSOMAS. The proposed scope of work includes all QSP responsibilities as required by the State Water Board in the Construction General Permit. These are summarized below. • The completion of all weekly BMP site inspections and follow up documentation and reporting; installation and data recording for an on -site rain gauge; updating the SWPPP Erosion Control Plan map with current BMP conditions; development and submittal, as needed, of all applicable Project documents to the City for upload to the State Water Board's Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), including ad -hoc reports, as needed Change of Information (COI) submittals, annual reports, and a final Notice of Termination (NOT) once final stabilization is achieved. • Completion and documentation of qualifying rain event monitoring and follow-up reporting, including pre-, post-, and during -storm site inspections, pH and turbidity sampling, and any non -visible water quality sampling and analysis, as needed, per the current General Construction Permit (GCP). [Costs for laboratory analysis for non -visible pollutants due to BMP failure, and/or construction spills resulting in potential contamination have not been included but would be billed at laboratory cost in the unlikely event they were to occur.] All field sampling data will be submitted to the City within 24-hours of the inspection along with all applicable inspection documentation. Project assumptions are listed below and the Project budget estimate is provided in Attachment 1. 211 Culver Blvd Suite N, Playa del Rey, California, 90293 — (424) 241-3524 • Page 2 Project Assumptions May 17, 2024 1 Period of service will be from July 2024 through December 2025 (18 months). 2 Project work hours are Monday -Friday 7:00 AM — 4:00 PM. 3 Up to four on -site sample locations may require collection of potential run on and/or runoff during a qualifying rain event. 4 A SWPPP file and SWPPP BMP Erosion Control Plan map will be maintained by EcoKai and kept on -site that will be available for immediate inspection by any Water Board or City personnel upon request. 5 In the unlikely event that non -visible pollutant sampling is required, laboratory analysis costs will be billed at EcoKai cost without markup. 6 Additional tasks and/or services not specifically identified above but requested and agreed upon by EcoKai, will be billed per EcoKai's Standard Fee Schedule (Attachment 2) unless otherwise agreed. 7 EcoKai will submit monthly invoices for services provided. All invoices are due NET 60. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal. If you have any questions, or if I can of any additional assistance, please call me in the office at (424) 241-3524. Sincerely, Jim Burton, PE, QSD/P President / CEO EcoKai Environmental, Inc. Attach— (1) Project Budget Estimate (2) EcoKai Standard Fee Schedule 211 Culver Blvd Suite N, Playa del Rey, California, 90293 — (424) 241-3524 • Page 3 May 17, 2024 Attachment 1 Project Budget Estimate (Period of Service July 2024 through December 2025;18 months) Task No. / Description Unit Qty Labor Cost / Totals4) Unit 1 - Weekly QSP Inspections, Weather Tracking, Erosion Control Plan BMP Map Updates, Rain Gauge Installation & Monitoring, Field Instrument Per Week 78 $525 $40,950 Calibration & Maintenance, and Project Documentation & Reporting 2 - Rain Event Field Sampling$ Pre -storm Site Visits Each 15 $400 $6,000 Post -storm Site Visits Each 10 $400 $4,000 During Rain Site Visits Each 25 $500 $12,500 TOTAL $63,450 t = Laboratory costs for non -visible pollutant sampling, if necessary, per the General Construction Permit, will be billed at cost and have not been included herein. (� = Mileage is included in costs. 211 Culver Blvd Suite N, Playa del Rey, California, 90293 — (424) 241-3524 • Page 4 Attachment 2 EcoKai Standard Hourly Rates (Effective 01/01/2024) May 17, 2024 Principal Water Resource Engineer $135 Principal Environmental Engineer $135 Sr. Hydrogeologist / Geologist $125 Sr. Regulatory Specialist $125 Sr. Environmental Scientist $125 Sr. Biologist / Botanist $105 Irrigation Specialist $95 GIS Specialist $95 Staff Environmental Scientist $85 Staff / Biologist / Botanist / Monitor $85 Field Technician (Support) $75 Administrative / Project Assistant $55 Hourly rates include direct labor, overhead, fringe benefits, standard computer and technology costs, and fee, if applicable. Per Diem, if applicable, is billed at allowable IRS rates by project location and State Expert Witness Testimony is two times normal rate. Reimbursable Mileage is charged at IRS allowable rates and incurred parking expenses, if any, are billed at cost. Client requested, prints, plots, messenger service, air travel, and/or other directly requested items or materials for purchase are charged at cost. 211 Culver Blvd Suite N, Playa del Rey, California, 90293 — (424) 241-3524 EXHIBIT "F" Bryan Smith Smith landscape Management 27402 Briars Place Santa Clarita, CA 91354 April 23, 2024 Jeremy Johnson Psomas RE: Inspection Services— David March Park Project Jeremy: Thank you for the opportunity to provide a quote for inspection services for the David March Park Project. Having recently completed similar projects for the City I am familiar with the work and hours necessary to manage such a project and successfully work with contractors, city staff, and other local agencies. I look forward to helping in any way I can. My rate for this project would be $73 per hour flat rate for all day services and $146per hour for night services. A gas charge will also be added for any required travel outside of the Santa Clarita Valley. Scope of Services 1. Work with the Contractor and City staff during planning and installation to ensure that best practices are used and quality control is maintained. This includes plan review as well as material selection. 2. Daily Project Logs and Reports detailing work performed by contractors and subcontractors, staff on -site, equipment & material used, as well as other pertinent information. 3. Oversee all aspects of irrigation system installation. A. Irrigation controller, metering, and backflow installation. B. Irrigation pipe placement, protection and installation. C. Proper assembly and installation of a valve and sprinkler assemblies. D. Ensure that practices are followed for water conservation and irrigation system longevity. 4. Oversee and manage installation of all plant materials. A. Topsoil selection and quality control. B. Plant and tree selection including tagging of materials before delivery. c. Inspection of plant material at time of delivery to ensure quality control. D. Ensure that best practices are followed for longterm health of trees and plants E. Manage and inspect installation of decorative hardscape features and special rock work. 5. Provide daily on -site inspection. A. Normally this would entail 1.5+ hours in the morning beginning at 7 AM and 1.5+ hours in the afternoon. B. Attend all necessary meetings with Contractors and City Staff. C. Available 24 hours a day for any emergencies. D. Travel to nursery and material providers to personally tag plant material. Estimated hours required: 600 hours Estimated total compensation: $44,800 Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a quote for my services on this project. As a licensed contractor with over 30 years of experience in the planning & design, installation, and maintenance of landscape/hardscape projects, I can provide you with well-rounded and skilled inspection services that provide the best value for the money. Sincerely, Bryan Smith LMD Monitor (661) 510-3666