HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - N VALENCIA 2 SP ANNEXATION (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented Vince Berton
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: November 23, 1999
SUBJECT: NORTH VALENCIA NO.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ANNEXATION (MASTER CASE NOS. 98-183, 99-055),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002, ANNEXATION
NO. 98-02, SPECIFIC PLAN (PREZONE) 98-003,
ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-
001, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM) 44831
OPTION A, VTTM 44831 OPTION B, VTTM 52667,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-006, OAK TREE PERMIT
98-020, HILLSIDE REVIEW 99-002, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT SCH# 98111201
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive staff presentation to address parks, trails and open space; receive
information from Bob Lee, Superintendent of the Hart School District regarding
school site issues raised at previous hearings; receive public testimony; provide
direction to staff for processing; and, continue the public hearing to a special
meeting in December for a site visit.
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The purpose of this meeting is to have staff, the applicant and Bob Lee answer
questions relating to parks, trails, open space and school issues raised previously
by the Council at the meetings of October 26, 1999 and November 9, 1999. The
Council has also requested that a site visit be scheduled for the project site.
BACKGROUND
At the November 9, 1999 public hearing, the City Council received information
from staff in answer to questions raised at the October 26, 1999 hearing, took
public testimony, directed questions to staff, and continued the public hearing to
November 23, 1999.
Council requested copies of the responses to letters received in the November 9,
1999 agenda report. These responses are attached.
Continued To: L3 0 9qP
The following issues were raised by the Council during the public hearing on
October 26, 1999 and will be addressed at the meeting:
1) General information on the size of the community park and features.
2) School issues- Bob Lee will be at the meeting to discuss Council concerns.
3) Safe routes to school.
4) Ride -share program for the junior high school site.
The following issues were raised by the Council during the public hearing on the
North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan project on November 9, 1999:
1) Provide a description and location of all parks and open spaces. Provide
additional acreage outside the MWD rights-of-way.
2) Identify the current status of the sites and activities included in the L. A.
County North River Park and Trails Agreement.
3) Evaluate the parks proposed in the West Creek project. Are these turnkey
parks?
4) For Creekside/Eastcreek- is there an opportunity to have a passive
recreation area between these two planning areas.
5) Provide passive open space for a trail head on the west side of San
Francisquito Creek near Decoro Drive Brige.
6) Investigate to see if there are state and federal funds available for arundo
donax erradication.
7) What is the amount of Upland Preserve Zone, open space, and the length
of trails proposed in the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan.
8) San Francisquito Creek (120.5 -acres) needs to be dedicated as permanent
open space to a public agency or entity to be maintained in perpetuity.
9) Copper Hill Drive Bridge and Decoro Drive Bridge need to provide bicycle
connections across the bridge.
10) Provide passive open space for natural habitat.
11) Provide equestrian trail connections to the north.
12) Provide safe bicycle connections to Valencia High School.
13) Provide responses to General Plan groundwater issues (Goal 2).
ATTACHMENT
1) FEIR Responses to Comment Letters Concerning Environmental Issues
Received Following Closure of the Planning Commission Hearings
Prepared by Impact Sciences.
S:\pbs\advance\nva2\nv2ar3.doc
`1
ISAAC LIEBERMAN
27517 Wellsley way
Vakada. CA 91334
Td: ("1) 296-3940 e-mA- Lhaaae*4caw
Tuesday, September 28,1999
Dear SCV Planning Commission:
Our schools are overcrowded and the smog and traffic are both getting worse.
The pace of growth in this valley is sky-high.
Please do nota rove additional construction in the San Franci
pp squito Canyon.
We need a time to slow down and take a look at the problems in the valley.
Finally, any decisions made by the commission should be made with as much
awareness in the community as possible. This should be your goal if your intent
is to serve the community. Especially decisions such as this one concerning 1,900
units currently under consideration. If these meetings are not televised, your
integrity cannot fail to be questioned. Regardless of why they're not, it just
smells bad.
I personally asked 23 people, many of them strangers, if they were interested in
signing a petition protesting the rapid pace of growth here and requesting
DENIALS of both the current city and county construction proposals in San
Francisquito Canyon. All but one enthusiastically signed. That told me
something loud and clear.
Slow it down. Deny approval for the new construction.
Thanks,
Isaac Lieberman
CNA OCaimen!sl?bnningGvnmiscn Cce
1. Letter Received from Isaac Lieberman dated September 28. 1999
Responsel
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Air Quality and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are
addressed in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.4, Air Qualitv, and 4.3, Traffic/Access,
respectively.
Response2
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
1
G
Sep -28-99 12:37P LITTON R AND M
September 28,19W
To: City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission
From: Phil Hof, resident
818 6787695
Subject: Tonight's meeting re: 1900 units in San Francisquito Canyon.
Commissioners:
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. I have also noted that due to the timin
of this meeting, we residents will not be able to watch the proceedings on our
local SCV-TV station tonight.
This large project, so devastating to the canyon area, is apparently going to be
approved without the public oversight that our usual open planning process
affords us.
1 am told that in fact this is not the first such meeting to be held away from the
glare of the cameras, and therefore from the public—a public that will be so
affected by the traffic, overcrowding, environmental degradation, and over-
extension of public services that this project will impose on us.
I also note that none of the related documents, EIRs, staff reports, etc., are
available on the City web site.
This exclusion of the public, requiring the burden of taking time off work to
appear and gather information, is not the kind of open planning and open
government that this City was founded on.
I ask that you consider delaying the approval of this project until such time that
meaningful public oversight and participation can be implemented.
I am aware that all the proper rules have been followed, but this defeats the
intent and spirit of out open meeting rules.
Phil Hof,
Valencia, CA
(661)296-1207
Response 1
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, na
further response is required.
Response 2
Proposed project traffic impacts are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Traffic/Access.
The Draft EIR concludes that with mitigation there would be no significant traffic impacts.
Regarding the commentators assertion of overcrowding please also see Draft EIR Section 4.17,
Population, Employment/ Housing, which discusses the consistency of the proposed project and
cumulative projects with the population and housing estimates established by the Southern
California Association of Government's regional growth projections for the Valley. Public
services (i.e. water service, wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, utilities, education,
library services, fire protection, parks and recreation and sheriff services) are addressed in
Draft EIR Sections 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16 and 4.19, respectively.
The purpose of the Draft EIR prepared for the project is to provide information as to the
potential environmental impacts if the project were to be constructed. All of the potential
impacts, including impacts that can be mitigated and impacts which cannot be mitigated, are
addressed in detail within each environmental topical area in the Draft EIR.
Response 3
The City strongly disagrees that information is not available to the general public regarding
the proposed project. The City's web site lists the complete agenda with all items to be heard
listed - for both the Planning Commission and the City Council. As of the writing of this
response, this project has been agendized/listed on the City's web site on the Planning
Commission agenda 20 times and twice on the City Council agenda. Each agenda provides a
notice of availability of complete agenda items (i.e. staff reports, EIRs, conditions of approval,
as appropriate) at City Hall, Sheriff's substation and Valencia Library. General notice to the
availability of the Draft EIR was published in an 1/8 page advertisement in The Newhall
Signal on March 10, 1999 and October 5, 1999. Public hearing notices were sent to those property
owners living within 500 feet of the property boundary. In addition, all of the property owners
(according to the latest tax rolls) in Northpark were notified as well as all property owners
within 500 feet easterly of the Northpark boundary. Two large public noticing signs were
P]
placed on the subject property for both the Planning Commission and City Council hearing
dates.
As discussed in the Final EIR, the Draft EIR was circulated for review from March 31, 1999, to
June 17, 1999 (a total of 79 days, or 34 more days than the 45 days the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requires). In addition, testimony was received by the City of Santa
Clarita Planning Commission on the adequacy of the Draft EIR on the following dates: April 6,
1999, April 15, 1999, April 20, 1999, April 29, 1999, May 13, 1999, May 1S, 1999, June 15, 1999 and
June 17, 1999 and the City Council on October 26, 1999 and November 9, 1999.
Response 4
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
3
To the Planning Commission
Re: 1900 Housing units
San P'rencisquito Cyn.
/d-apl S
When will enough be enough for all, this development, traffic, air _
quality, c:Lc.? Can't this be downsized to perhaps 700 units?Why
so much in S() little of space? and then the 2,500 units also, and v
then all the ol.her home developments here, there, everywhere?
The trdlfic .is horrendous tiow and going out to get things is
a real ordo:,.l. Please rethink your position on the number of J
these units, etc:.
Thanks for yOur Lime/consideration
Please al -SO rerLember that Gray Davis is signing Money over to
Santa Clarity for parks and recreation and the preservation
of public lane:. Let's keep some land so we do have a place
to get away irom it all and a place to hike, bicycle, and a place
for horseback riding, and mountain biking.
Friends of San r'rancisqui.to Cyn.
3. Letter Received from Friends of San Francisquito Canyon dated September 28 1999
Response 1
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response
The commentator gives no rationale as to why the number of residential dwelling units
proposed with the project should be reduced to 700 units. Draft EIR Section 6.0, Project
Alternatives, proposes reducing the project density by 30 percent thereby allowing 1,130
dwelling units and 147,000 square feet of commercial uses. The analysis for this alternative
concluded on Draft EIR page 6.0-29 that, "The reduction of housing units does not meet the
housing objectives of responding to economic conditions by providing as great a variety of
housing types."
The West Creek project proposes 2,549 dwelling units. Other projects within the San
Francisquito Canyon include Tesoro del Valle (approximately 1,793 units) which is located
within the unincorporated County of Los Angeles. These projects have been analyzed with
regards to cumulative impacts in conjunction with the proposed project. Please see Section 3.0,
Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology, which discusses cumulative development analysis
within the Santa Clarita Valley. Please also see Draft EIR Section 4.17, Population,
Employment/Housing, which discusses the consistency of the proposed project and cumulative
projects with the population and housing estimates established by the Southern California
Association of Government's regional growth projections for the Valley.
Response
Traffic concerns are addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Traffic/Access, which discusses existing
conditions, project and cumulative impacts, and mitigation necessary to mitigate impacts to less
than significant levels.
4
Response
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
FRGM : COQ�PHOW M7. : 010 780 3704 Sep. 29 1999 10:22AM p%
VICTORIA LOVELAND-COEN
CZ9
September 29, 1999
Dear SCV Planning Commission:
Our schools are overcrowded and the smog and traffic are both getting worse. The
pace of growth in this valley is unchecked. j L
Please do not approve additional construction in the San Francisquito Canyon. Wej y
need a time to slow down and take a look at the problems in our valley.
Finally, any decisions made by the commission should be made with as much
awareness in the community as possible. This should be your goal if your intent is
to serve the community. Especially decisions such as this one concerning 1,900
units currently under consideration. These meetings ought to be televised.
The citizens of this community must know if you are serving them or special
interest.
Slow it down. Deny approval for the new construction
Sincerely,
f6;2t -
Victoria Loveland -Coen
26510.V.rambino Coun Valencia,, CA 91.55 1999
4. Letter Received from Victoria Loveland -Coen dated September 29, 199
Response 1
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Air Quality and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are
addressed in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.4, Air Quality and 4.3, Traffic/Access, respectively.
Response 2
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response 3
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
G
map-car-ar ar iy:V1A P.OI
Dear SCV Planning Concnission:
As a long time resident of SCV, as a father, and as one of those you
claim to represent, I ask you to consider the following:
Our schools are overcrowded and the smog and traffic are both getting
worse.
I have a child who attends school in Santa Clarita. There are health
L
issues being investigated relating to the mobile and temporary
classrooms. These units are being used because our schools cannot
^c
support the increasing population. This will only be worsened by a
massive increase in construction.
The pace of growth in this valley is sky-high.
Please do not approve additional construction in the San Francisquito
Canyon. We need a time to slow down and take a look at the problems in
the valley.
Finally, any decisions made by the commission should be made with as
much awareness in the community as possible. This should be your goal
if your intent is to serve the community. Especially decisions such as
this one concerning 1,900 units currently under consideration. If
these meetings are not televised, your integrity cannot fail to be
questioned. The people whom you claim to serve have a voice in this and
you should be listening.
Slow it down. Our community needs time to adapt itself to the growth
already in progress. The beauty of Santa Clarita is being choked by
this unchecked growth. Progress can be a positive action, but
unchecked it could destroy the very reason people moved here in the
first place. Deny approval for the new construction.
Santa Clarita deserves your support. You should be thinking of SCV's
children, its environmental health, and the quality of life of the
people living here, not your wallets. And please do not leave our
valley in the hands of those who would decimate it in favor of
financial gain. --�
Sincerely,
Warren George
To: FAX #(661)259-8125
Response 1
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Air Quality and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are
addressed in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.4, Air Quality and 4.3, Traffic/Access, respectively.
Response 2
According to the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School
District, this project has fully mitigated its specific and cumulative impacts on schools. Issues
regarding the use of portable or temporary classrooms is a decision of the School District and
not the City.
Response 3
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Response 4
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response 5
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
d
Since I will be unable to attend Tuesday night's hearing regarding the San
Francisquito project known as North Valencia 2, I would like to go on
record
as being terribly concerned about the approval of any more new homes in our
valley at this time.
Presently, I have a child at Saugus High and another one who will enter
Arroyo Seco next fall. It seems silly to restate what I'm sure you already
know, but our schools cannot and are not keeping up with the rate of growth
in this valley. I beg you to allow the Hart District the precious time it
needs to -catch up- with development so that our kids can continue to enjoy
the quality of education so many of us moved up to Santa Clarita for. I
need
not tell you how terribly overcrowded our junior highs and high schools are
or how long it will take for the Hart District to bring the badly needed
new
schools on line. Even after Golden Valley, Rio Norte and the 2 projected
Stevenson Ranch schools are built, the overcrowded conditions will continue
because of the projects that have already been approved. Enough is enough,
at least for now.
There are many good reasons to oppose this project at this time, but it
seems
to me that the education of our children is such a strong one, that it
easily stands on its own merit. Please do what you can in the name of our
children and choose to stop unrestrained growth. My children are counting
on
you.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
Flynn Neilson, Santa Clarita
2 --
CODES to Crrr COUNCIL,
Cffr MARACEN cm CLEar
Data: 10/23199 8:54 PM
Sender. SCVFIynn@aoi.com
To: Cannon Sarro; AN KIaJ1c; Janke Heide Frank Ferry; Laurene Waste
Priority: Nonnal
Sublect:North Valencia 2
Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons:
Since I will be unable to attend Tuesday night's hearing regarding the San
Francisquito project known as North Valencia 2, I would like to go on
record
as being terribly concerned about the approval of any more new homes in our
valley at this time.
Presently, I have a child at Saugus High and another one who will enter
Arroyo Seco next fall. It seems silly to restate what I'm sure you already
know, but our schools cannot and are not keeping up with the rate of growth
in this valley. I beg you to allow the Hart District the precious time it
needs to -catch up- with development so that our kids can continue to enjoy
the quality of education so many of us moved up to Santa Clarita for. I
need
not tell you how terribly overcrowded our junior highs and high schools are
or how long it will take for the Hart District to bring the badly needed
new
schools on line. Even after Golden Valley, Rio Norte and the 2 projected
Stevenson Ranch schools are built, the overcrowded conditions will continue
because of the projects that have already been approved. Enough is enough,
at least for now.
There are many good reasons to oppose this project at this time, but it
seems
to me that the education of our children is such a strong one, that it
easily stands on its own merit. Please do what you can in the name of our
children and choose to stop unrestrained growth. My children are counting
on
you.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
Flynn Neilson, Santa Clarita
2 --
u . •[a'Ti�iPl�. i � . � � •.F.S� � � � 2-�i�3cJ[iLSS]
Response 1
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Response
Please see Response 2 above.
93
2)
Gail Eisenberg
gail@scvnet.com
COM To CAT COUNCIL,
CAT MANAGER, CAT CLERIC
Data: 10/25199 9:58 AM
Sender. gaftscvnet.00m (Ga!N Eisenberg)
O
To: Cannan Sano
�stt
Priority: Normal
Subiect: No on North Valamia 2 oroiect
>Dear Mayor Darcy
>I am opposed to the North Valencia
2 project for many reasons. Water,
>roads, schools, to much TRAFFIC
already, it should have a lower
population
>denisty. I am for slow growth.
I am also feel we need space. I don t
>want our valley to turn into the
San Fernando Valley. Where any open
space
>is quickly turned into housing.
We need to breathe in open space. Please
>hear us!!!!! We need to be heard and represented.
>SLOW GROWTH, PLEASE. NO ON NORTH VALENCIA 2 PROJECT.
>I would come to the city council
meeting, however I work on Tuesday
evenings.
>
>Thank you for your ears and support!
>Gail Eisenberg
>Gail Eisenberg
>gailescvnet.com
Gail Eisenberg
gail@scvnet.com
'r Slr t a r r' • • rr
Response 1
Water and traffic issues are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.9, Water Service and 4.3,
Traffic/Access. Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are
fully mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project
applicant and the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School
District. Both agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Draft EIR Section 6.0, Project Alternatives, proposes reducing the project density by 30 percent
thereby allowing 1,130 dwelling units and 147,000 square feet of commercial uses. The analysis
for this alternative concluded on Draft EIR page 6.0-29 that, "The reduction of housing units
does not meet the housing objectives of responding to economic conditions by providing as great a
variety of housing types."
Please also see Draft EIR Section 4.17, Population, Employment/Housing, which discusses the
consistency of the proposed project and cumulative projects with the population and housing
estimates established by the Southern California Association of Government's regional growth
projections for the Valley
Response 2
The project's park program (including open space) includes the following recreational features
and is described in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Parks and Recreation:
• a 15.9 -acre public community park;
• 4.1 acres of private local parks;
• incorporation of an existing undeveloped 3.5 acre community park site;
• 1.7 acres of paseos;
• 7.3 acres of community trails;
• 93.4 acres of open space including:
- 47.5 acres of the San Francisquito Creek; and
- 45.9 acres of undeveloped upland preserve zone adjacent to the Creek.
0
Response 3
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
10
C011t3 TO GTl' COUNCIL,
�+ M jCER. CITY CLERK
Date: 10V2"91:02 PM
n
Sender. sstola@dwp.cl.la.ca.us
To: Carmen Sano
Drde
Priorfty: Normal
Subject: Oppose the North Valencia 2 Project
Dear Mayor Joanne Darcey..I am pleading
w/you & council Members to oppose
or
drastically reduce development
of North Valencia 2 Project due to the overcrowding, lack of water,
traffic, air
quality, and the preservation of open
public land use, parks, and recreational
use trails to this valley. We have
enough development already. Our schools
are so overcrowded and there is nothing
but building, building, and
building
going on..it is overwhelming, unnecessary,
and will reduce the quality of life (it already has due to overcrowding)
that we
have at present. Please consider this
opposition from many of us in and around
Stevenson Ranch, Plum Cyn, Bouquet
Cyn,
San Francisquito Cyn, Green
Valley, Leona Valley, and Newhall..
S. Email Received from sstola@dwI2.ci.la.ca.us
Response
Draft EIR Section 6.0, Project Alternatives, proposes reducing the project density by 30 percent
thereby allowing 1,130 dwelling units and 147,000 square feet of commercial uses. The analysis
for this alternative concluded on Draft EIR page 6.0-29 that, "The reduction of housing units
does not meet the housing objectives of responding to economic conditions by providing as great a
variety of housing types."
Water supplies exist for the proposed project. Draft EIR Section 4.9, Water Services,
demonstrates that water supply is available to serve the proposed project. Draft EIR Section
4.3, Traffic/Access, concludes that with mitigation traffic impacts will be mitigated to less
than significant.
The project's park program (including open space) includes the following recreational features
and is described in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.16, Parks and Recreation:
• a 15.9 -acre public community park;
• 4.1 acres of private local parks;
• incorporation of an existing undeveloped 3.5 acre community park site;
• 1.7 acres of paseos;
• 7.3 acres of community trails;
• 93.4 acres of open space including:
- 47.5 acres of the San Francisquito Creek; and
- 45.9 acres of undeveloped upland preserve zone adjacent to the Creek.
Project and cumulative impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully
mitigated by virtue of the school agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and
the William S. Hart Union High School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both
agreements are provided in the appendix to the Draft EIR.
Response
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
11
l�
Lotus cc:Mail for Sharon Dawson
Date: 1012M9 8:05 AM
Sander: gail@scmetcom (Gail Eisenberg)
To: Sharon Dawson
Priority. Norrnal
Subject: No on North Valencia 2 project
I write this letter because I am concerned about the North Valencia 2
project. The over crowding of this project, the water issue, the roads, 2
the schools. We need the open space. We don't need to be over populated.
I believe in slow growth!! I believe in responsible growth!!! Our TRAFFIC
is already a problem!! Please'think of the whole picture. We don't need
our community to look like the San Fernando Valley. Crowded and crime
ridden. Please lets leave our valley a place of warmth and charm and
responsible government!!
I would come to the meeting on Tuesday however I need to work!!
Sincerely
Gail Eisenberg
Resident of Santa Clarita for over 25 years
Gail Eisenberg
gail@scvnet.com
COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL,
CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK
to - a5-99
nde x
Response 1
Please see Response 1 and 2 of Ms. Eisenberg's email of October 25, 1999 above.
Response 2
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
12
n wu. �..., naruw a Owe: 1025!99 Tine: 15:04:21 Page 1 or t
�..nwane carry
PLEASE COPY TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
October 25, 1999
To: Mayor Joanne Darcy
City of Santa Clarita
From: Ron Bottorff, Chair
Friends of the Santa Clara River
660 Randy Drive
;Newbury Park, CA 91320
Re: :North Valencia 2 Project
COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL,
GT
T N AGER, CITY CLERK
ZDah/J �
Friends of the Santa Clara River is extremely concerned about the cumulative impacts of growth
along San Francisquito Creek. North Valencia 2 adds another 1,900 units to existing
development with Northbridge and Northpark also in the hopper. Each additional project furthers
the fragmentation and degradation of the creek and its associated riparian habitat, with the heavy �-
irony that this creek is one of Los Angeles County's Significant Ecological Areas! This is not the
way to treat an SEA. --
Considering the subject of urban impact on riparian buffer zones, we have just come into
possession of a very recent paper on the subject: "Predicting the impact of urbanization on
riparian bird communities", by Stephen C. Rottenbom, Center for Conservation Biology,
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, published in the Journal of Biological
Conservation 88 (1999). [A hard copy of this entire document will follow via U.S. Mail]. This
paper evaluated the influence of urbanization on the richness of riparian bird species in the Santa
Clara Valley (Santa Clara County). Total species richness and permanent resident species
richness increased significantly as the distance to buildings and bridges increased, out to a distance
of 500 meters. This puts to rest the idea that buffer zones of 10 to 100 feet are even remotely
adequate for riparian areas. PLEASE INSIST ON REVISIONS TO THIS PROJECT TO GIVE
A BUFFER WIDTH OF AT LEAST 500 FEET. This buffer width is likely still inadequate but is
at least a major improvement on the existing plan.
Further, no projects should be approved until they have an identified and committed water supply.
The Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is already in overdraft. Adequate water for 6,000 I [
additional units along San Francisquito Creek is a highly doubtful proposition without further
state water. The EIR states that water entitlement is in place, BUT entitlement is NOT supply,
since it is well established that state water delivery is only 50 % reliable. Solutions for water
transfer and storage must be identified before further state water imports are implemented.
Response
There are several projects proposed within the San Francisquito Creek area in addition to the
proposed project. The West Creek project proposes 2,549 dwelling units. Other projects within
the San Francisquito Canyon include Tesoro del Valle (approximately 1,793 units) which is
located within the unincorporated County of Los Angeles. All cumulative projects have been
analyzed with regards to cumulative impacts in conjunction with the proposed project. Please
see Draft EIR Section 3.0, Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology, which discusses
cumulative development analysis within the Santa Clarita Valley. Please also see Draft EIR
Section 4.17, Population, Employment/ Housing, which discusses the consistency of the proposed
project and cumulative projects with the population and housing estimates established by the
Southern California Association of Government's regional growth projections for the Valley.
Response 2
Please see Response 1 above. Projects are currently under review by the County of Los Angeles
adjacent to San Francisquito Creek which are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa
Clarita. As a matter of note, the City has reviewed the environmental documentation for
projects outside of City boundaries and has submitted comments to the County of Los Angeles on
these projects. Cumulative impacts of nearby projects have been addressed in this EIR in each
environmental topic area as well as in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Cumulative Impact Analysis and
Methodology.
Section 4.6, Biota, page 4.6-85 concludes that:
"A number of potentially significant cumulative impacts on biological resources
contributed by the proposed project will occur. Because of the high biological
value of riparian and wetland habitats and because of the continued loss of
these habitats throughout the region, the project's contribution to this loss,
although relatively small, is considered a significant cumulative impact, both
to the vegetation community itself, as well as to its value to the riparian
ecosystem. Because of the time it takes for oak trees to reach maturity and
contribute biological values equal to that currently occurring on the site, and due
to continued loss of these trees in the region, the project's contribution to this
13
loss, is considered a significant cumulative impact. Continued development in
the area also cumulatively contributes to the increase of humans and domestic
animals. Because of the substantial amount of disturbance to sensitive resource
areas posed by this increase, the project's contribution to this increase is also
considered cumulatively significant. Although the proposed project minimizes
impacts to the biological resources within the SEA, the net loss of habitat
within the SEA, combined with net losses of SEA habitats from other projects,
effectively reduces the overall size of the SEA and is considered a significant
cumulative impact."
Response 3
The City has reviewed in detail the study referenced by Friends of the Santa Clara River,
"Predicting the impact of urbanization on riparian bird communities," by Stephen C.
Rottenborn, published in the Journal of Biological Conservation 88 (1999) and is summarized as
follows:
First, it is important to note that the study submitted was prepared for Santa Clara Valley in
Santa Clara County, California, and not the proposed project area. The study was basically
intended to show that the wider the riparian corridors and the broader the riparian buffers
from development, the better. However, and the study states that it was not intended to
identify a minimum buffer width required for the maintenance of the integrity of riparian bird
communities. The riparian buffer study that Impact Sciences conducted (see Draft EIR page 4.6-
36) was intended to do just that; not identify the maximum buffer area, but the minimum to
maintain the current species richness and diversity that is exists now.
While the study submitted did conclude that riparian habitats closer to developed areas
generally had lower species richness than those farther from development, the study points out
that a number of variables together, not just the distance to the nearest building or bridge as the
comment letter seems to imply, contributed to the changes in bird species density and richness.
The variables that seemed to be important to the most species were the number of bridges
within the study plots, the distance to the nearest bridge, riparian corridor width, and total
vegetation volume, with the number of bridges actually being the most important variable.
Friends of the Santa Clara River misrepresents the significance of the 500 meters distance in
which species richness increased. The 500 meter mark was the radius distance from the center
of each study plot (the center of each plot was located at the creek bank edge) within which
the percent cover by pavement, buildings, and other artificial surfaces were estimated.
14
Buildings, pavement, etc. certainly occurred within 500 meters; it was just the distance the
author arbitrarily used to measure percent cover of artificial surfaces. It was also the arbitrary
radius distance within which the author also measured the distance from the study plot center
to the nearest building, paved road, and bridge crossing. Therefore, there is no real significance
to the 500 meter mark other than that is what the author used to define his study plot
"boundaries", to make sure the study area included buildings, paved surfaces, and bridges.
As with any study, the conclusions of one study in one particular area do not necessarily apply
to another area. While certain conclusions can be similar and implied for other study sites, it is
important to note that the study occurred in a very different part of the state, some 300 miles or
so apart, from the Santa Clara River. In addition, because of these difference (which can
include everything from the level of current disturbance to the riparian corridor and surrounding
areas to current level of species diversity and richness), the portions of the Santa Clara River
along North Valencia No. 2 may not need as large a buffer as those areas studied in Santa
Clara County. In this case, the proposed project site area was specifically evaluated in order to
determine an appropriate buffer width for this project site.
Response
Please see Final EIR Response 8 to letter received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clara
Organization for Planning and the Environment, dated June 16, 1999 regarding water supply and
entitlement figures.
There is no evidence to support a finding that the Alluvial or Saugus Aquifers are in a state of
overdraft nor does Castaic Lake Water Agency's Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP)
indicate that the basin is in a state of overdraft. Please see Final EIR Response 5 to Letter
received from Lynn Plambeck Santa Ciarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
dated tune 16.1999 for further discussion.
Response 5
The City disagrees with the commentator that there is no identified storage for the water,
based upon the information provided in the EIR (see Draft EIR Section 4.9, Water Services and
public testimony received during the public comment period and testimony received at the
Planning Commission). Please see Final EIR, Response 10 Letter received from Lynn Plambeck
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment dated tune 16 1999 for further
discussion..
15
jj OCT -26-1999 07 18 FROM CHATSWORTH H S TO 16612598125
II
t
CHATS WORTH HIGH
FAX (818) 709-6952
TEL. NO. (818) 841-6211
FAX NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES (including this page)
P.01/02
SCHOOL
SCHOOL cw S & 4 V%
COMPANY: �IiL
DATE
DFSCRIMON OF DOCUMENT OR McORTTA�NTNOTES
OCT -26-1999 07 18 FROM CHATSWORTH H S
Mayor Joanne Darcy
Santa Clarita City Hall
23920 valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
TO 16612598125 P.02i02
Marlene E. Kasahara
26723 Mocha Dr.
Santa Clarita, CA 91350
Dear Mayor Darcy, October 25, 1999
In 1992, 1 purchased an older home in one of the oldest housing
tracks in Santa Clarita. Since then I've been more than just a little
surprised and increasingly alarmed at the rapid rate of growth in this
valley. What was once clusters of small, friendly neighborhoods
surrounded by gentle roiling hills, dotted with oaks and creased with
cottonwoods Is doing a vanishing act. It is as If growth and development
took on a mind of its own and Is now in control of the communities leaving
its citizens to stand and watch its dizzying dance as more of this
particular natural environment is forever changed. This may be all well
and good for developers and realtors, but 1 question what this Is doing to
the quality of family life in Santa Clarita. There are already serious
concerns of sustainable water supplies, classroom and school shortages,
and traffic congestion and safety Issues. I've noticed that it Is now no
longer safe to drive at some of the posted speed limits and, 1 am barely
able to inch out onto Bouquet Canyon which is my closest cross street. _
I'm sure that Santa Clarita would rather be known as
a model
community because of its vision and self reflection rather than one that
used to be because It thought more of a good thing was better. 1 am
urging you to support a moratorium on building of any kind except for
classrooms and schools. The citizens of this city need time to take It all In,
before they decided what to do next, what will go where and how much
will it all cost, financially and environmentally and spiritually.
Respectfully yours,
TOTAL P.02
1
2
11. Letter Received from Marlene Kasahara (Chatsworth High School)October
Response 1
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
Response
Water and traffic issues are addressed in detail in Draft EIR Sections 4.9, Water Service and
4.3, Traffic/Access. Draft EIR Section 4.3, Traffic/Access, indicates that mitigation measures
are intended to improve traffic flow and subsequent safety issues. Project and cumulative
impacts to schools potentially created by this project are fully mitigated by virtue of the school
agreements entered into by the proposed project applicant and the William S. Hart Union High
School District and the Saugus Union School District. Both agreements are provided in the
appendix to the Draft EIR.
Please see Final EIR Response 8 to letter received from Lynn Plambeck, Santa Clara
Organization for Planning and the Environment, dated June 16, 1999 regarding water supply and
entitlement figures.
Response
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no
further response is required.
ILO
02 -
Date: 10/28/99 7:25 AM
Sender: Jeffrey Lambert
To: Vince Bertoni
Priority: Normal
Subiect:Fwd:Council mtg 10/26
Vince,
I would suggest a quick e-mail to Sally telling her that these and many other questions will be
answered as part of the 11/9 City council agenda report and hand out at the meeting. We can make
sure a copy of this is available for her on the 9th.
Jeff
Forward Header
Subject: Council mtg 10/26
Author: Jill Klajic
Date: 10/27/99 10:15 PM
Hi! Jeff, can you forwaed this to Vince, thanks, Jill
Forward Header
Subject: Council mtg 10/26
Author: sally.clark@csun.edu at INTERNET -MAIL
Date: 10/27/99 4:12 PM
How do I contact the city staff who gave the report on San Francisquito
Canyon (Vince?)? I want to know the formula used to determine children
per household.
And who devised the formula? Is it a standard?
Also, when is the school required to be built? Before or after the
houses are completed? And to accommodate how many? Is it an elementary, n
secondary, or senior high school? And where do the other children go if
it's only one of these? And where will it be built, anyway? That was
pretty funny. If they put it on rollers they can move it from one
location to another as suits their whim. And if a location is not safe
enough for a school, should anything be there?
1
Re the park: if it doesn't meet city standards, why would the city even
consider accepting it? That seems to me an invitation to put in other
substandard parks in other areas.
They only meet Quimby standards because of set aside private use land.
How does restricting use benefit the rest of the community? Can it
actually be shown that it eliminates impact on city properties? Or is
this just more 3 -card monty?
I was nearly weeping over the bounty of the developers. Good thing Ferry
was there to point it out to us. Can we supply him with a violin for the Ij
next meeting? ✓,
Just some of my thoughts and questions. It was instructive as usual.
12. Email Received from sally.clark@csun.edu at INTERNET MAIL
Response 1
Please see Draft EIR Section 4.13, Education page 4.13-4, Table 4.13-1, Student Generation
Rates. A review of the table indicates that the student generation rates used in the Draft EIR
have been approved by both the Saugus Union School District and the William S. Hart Union
High School District.
Response 2
The commentator should read Draft EIR Section 1.0, Project Description, which makes direct
mention of the proposed junior high school site on pages 1.0-2, 1.0-3, 1.0-6, 1.0-7, 1.0-8, 1.0-9, 1.0-
21, 1.0-23, 1.0-28, 1.0-31, 1.0-33, and 1.0-38.
The purpose of the dual analysis on two sites is due to the uncertainty of the School District as
to the location of the proposed junior high school. The dual analysis allows the School District
the flexibility necessary to site the school. Lastly, the ultimate responsibility of siting a
school location are lies with the School District and the State Architects office, not the City.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Education, of the Draft EIR on page 4.13-11,
"...School Facility Funding Agreements exist between the project applicant and the
Saugus Union School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District which
would fully mitigate project impacts on these districts, the project's specific and cumulative
impacts would not be considered significant under CEQA and the County's DMS if the project
applicant and the districts comply with these agreements. As a result, no education -related
mitigation is required for this project."
As indicated in the Draft EIR, Section 4.20 which concluded that no hazardous materials were
known to exist on the project site or contain any materials which would be hazardous or would
preclude construction of a school.
Response 3
Measured under the identified significance threshold, the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan
project is in compliance with Quimby Act parkland requirements (Option B would result in a
17
shortfall of 2.65 acres), but with mitigation would not result in unavoidable significant impacts
to local park and recreation facilities. Please see Draft EIR Section 4.16, Parks and Recreation,
pages 4.16-28, 29, and 30 for a discussion regarding consistency of the project with the City's
parkland ordinance.
Response4
The comment is acknowledged. Because it does not address the content of the Draft EIR, ro
further response is required.
18
Board of Directors
Ron Bottorff
Chair
Barbara Wampole
Vice -Chair
Lynne Plambeck
Treasurer
Affiliated
Organizations
California Native
Plant Society
L.A./Santa Monica
Mountains Chapter
Santa Clarita
Organization for
Planning the
Environment
(SCOPE)
Sierra Club
Angeles Chapter
Los Andres Chapter
Surfrider Foundation
Audubon Society
Ventura Chapter
Friends of the Santa Clara River
660 Randy Drive, Newbury Park, California 91310-3036 • (805) 498-4323
October 28, 1999
Mayor Jo Anne Darcy and Santa Clarita City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: North Valencia 2 Project
Dear Mayor Darcy and City Council Members,
COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL,
CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK
Date
This letter is follow-on to our FAX to the City Council of October 25, 1999.
Friends of the Santa Clara River is extremely concerned about the cumulative
impacts of growth along.San FrancisVito Creek. North Valencia 2 adds another
1,900 units to existing development with Northbridge and Northpark also in the
hopper. Each additional project furthers the fragmentation and degradation of the
creek and its associated riparian habitat, with the heavy irony that this creek is oneG
of Los Angeles County's Significant Ecological Areas! This is not the way to tr@at
an SEA.
Considering the subject of urban impact on riparian habitat, we have just come into
possession of a very recent.paper on the subject: "Predicting the impact of
urbanization on riparian bird communities", by Stephen C. Rottenbom, Center for
Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University,
published in the Journal of Biological Conservation 88 (1999). A copy of this
document is enclosed. This paper evaluates the influence of urbanization on the
richness of riparian bird species in the Santa Clara Valley (Santa Clara Count).
Total species richness and.permanent resident species richness increased
significantly as the distance to buildings and bridges increased, out to a distance o_f
500 meters. This puts to rest the idea that buffer zones of 10 to 100 feet are even
remotely adequate for riparian areas. PLEASE INSIST ON REVISIONS TO
THIS PROJECT TO GIVE ABUFFER WIDTH OF AT LEAST 500 FEET.
This buffer width is likely still inadequate but is at least a major improvement on
the existing plan. _
Further, no projects should be approved until they have an identified and —11
committed water supply. The Santa Clara River alluvial aquifer is already in
overdraft. Adequate water for 6,000 additional units along San Francisquito Creek
is a highly doubtful proposition without further state water. The EIR states that
water entitlement is in place, BUT entitlement is NOT supply, since it is well
established that state water delivery is only 50 % reliable. Solutions for water
transfer and storage must be identified before further state water imports are
implemented. I1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
qhs
Ron Bottorff, Chair
0
onal
is -
ated
rhes
al air
arch
and
ianag
it. el's,`
Science
vvs. Per.
a or Sys.
delivery,
1cational
. Oxford
uk You
;electing
nc., 222
througf!.
on W1 P,.
)graphic""
.ulation
ion.
s.
includ-
:r trans
3ut prior
A e-mail
.atter of,
tions of
idepen
ublica-
s
i;
ger), .7'
AIL
BIOLOGICAL
���
CONSERVATION
EL SEVIER Biological Conservation 88 (1999) 289-299
Predicting the impacts of urbanization on riparian bird communities
Stephen C. Rottenbom*
Centerfor Catuerwtion Biology, Deparmrnt of Biological Sciences, Stanford Umvemy, Simford, CA 94305-5021, USA
Received 26 August 1998; received in revised form 17 October 1998; accepted 28 October 1998
Abstract
In 1995, birds were surveyed in riparian woodlands along a gradient of urbanization in the Santa Clara Valley, CA, USA, in
order to determine the relationships between riparian bird communities and urbanization. Bird species richness and density
decreased at a location as the number of bridges near that location increased and as the volume of native vegetation decreased.
Species richness also increased as the distance to the neatest building and the width of the riparian habitat increased. Canonical
correspondence analysis confirmed that bird community structure was influenced strongly by these variables. Many individual
species responded significantly to variables associated with urbanization, most having lower densities on more urbanized sites.
Whereas previous studies have demonstrated substantial effects of urbanization on bird communities in the habitats being directly
altered, this study indicates that urbanization on lands adjacent to intact riparian woodlands has substantial impacts on riparian
bird communities. C 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Urbanization; Birds; Riparian; Canonical correspondence analysis
1. Introduction
The influence of urbanization on bird communities
has been examined in a number of studies (e.g. Emlen,
I974; DeGraaf and Wentworth, 1981; Beissinger and
Osborne, 1982), most fording that urbanization has
profound effects on bird species richness, abundance,
and community composition. Low levels of develop-
ment may increase bird species richness somewhat as
additional resources, such as ornamental vegetation,
artificial roosting or nesting sites, and anthropogenic
food sources, are made available (Lancaster and Rees,
1979; Aldrich and Coffin, 1980; Blair, 1996). However,
intense urbanization results in a depaupemte bird com-
munity dominated by a few species that are common
and widespread.
Relatively little attention has been paid to the impacts
of urbanization on riparian bird communities. In Flor-
ida, Smith and Schaefer (1992) found bird species rich-
ness to be higher in riparian habitats in rural areas than
in urban areas during summer and found that housing
density on adjacent lands influenced riparian bird com-
munities. Similarly, Cubbedge and Nilon (1993) repor-
• Current address: H.T. Harvey and Associates, PO Box 1180,
Alviso, CA 95002, USA. Tel.: + 1.408.263-1814; fax: + 1-408-263-
3823; email: rottenbo@pacbell.net,
ted variation in the densities of individual species
among riparian habitats adjacent to different land use
types in Minnesota. These studies indicate that urbani-
zation has important impacts on riparian bird commu-
nities.
Urban impacts on riparian systems are worthy of
further study for a number of reasons. First, they sup-
port very high numbers of plant and animal species
(Knopf et al., 1988; Naiman et al., 1993). In and regions
in particular, riparian ecosystems are critical in main-
taining high biodiversity on a regional scale (Johnson et
al., 1977; Stevens et al., 1977; Knopf, 1985). Despite
their importance to biodiversity, riparian systems have
been severely degraded by anthropogenic activities. In
California, for example, > 95% of the riparian vegeta-
tion that was present prior to European settlement of
the state has been destroyed or significantly degraded
(Smith, 1977; Katibah, 1984). In turn, this habitat
degradation has caused substantial declines in the
populations of many riparian -associated animal species
(Gaines, 1974; Ohmart, 1994), necessitating protection
of the remaining riparian habitat.
In and regions, urbanization usually occurs along
rivers at low elevations, where bird species richness and
the number of regionally rare species are higher than in
any other habitat type in a watershed (Knopf, 1985;
Finch, 1989). In 1994-1995, a study of the effects of
00063207/99/&—see front matter ria 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
290 S.C. Ronenborn i Biologiml Cmermrion 88 (1999) 289-'99
adjacent land use on riparian bird communities in the
Santa Clara Valley of California showed that the pro-
portion of native versus exotic vegetation, proximity to
a building or bridge, and the amount of development
around a riparian plot were closely associated with the
distribution of riparian birds among 24 sites along a
gradient of urbanization (Rottenborn, 1997). The
objective of the present study was to determine the
relationships between these urbanization -associated
variables and bird species richness, density, and com-
munity structure on a much larger number of plots
along a longer urbanization gradient in order to predict
the effects of further urban sprawl and to conserve the
bird communities in the Santa Clara Valley.
2. Methods
2.1. Plot selection and bird recording
The Santa Clara Valley is located between the Diablo
and Santa Cruz Mountain Ranges at the southern end
of the San Francisco Bay in California, USA. The
northern and central portions of the valley are heavily
urbanized; suburban areas surround this urban core,
and agricultural; grassland areas are present in the
southern part of the valley. Within this relatively broad,
flat valley, study plots were selected along Coyote
Creek, Los Gatos Creek, and the Guadalupe River,
three of the largest streams in the study area. They are
relatively narrow (mostly < 15 m wide), low -gradient,
and slightly meandering, and are crossed by a number
of bridges. The narrow (mostly < 80 m wide) corridors
of mature woodland that remain along the banks
represent some of the most valuable riparian habitat in
the San Francisco Bay area (US Army Corps of Engi.
neers, 1986).
Eighty-three plots were selected randomly along the
lower reaches of these streams where the native riparian
habitat tends to be dominated by- Fremont cottonwood
Populus fremondi and several species of willows Salix
lueidtun, S. laevigaia, S. lasiolepis, and S. exigua. Fifteen
of these plots, located in areas where the vegetation had
been degraded considerably, were excluded from this
study. The remaining 68 plots were located adjacent to a
number of different land use types along a gradient of
urbanization, ranging from heavy industry to agri-
cultural land and open space in more rural areas. Each
plot center was at least 75 m from the nearest bridge,
and all plots were separated by at least 150 m. The cen-
ter of each plot was located as close as possible to the
center of the riparian corridor, usually at the stream
edge.
Birds were surveyed five times on each plot from 23
May to 13 July 1995. The variable circular -plot method
(Reynolds et al., 1980) was used to count the number of
individuals of each species recorded within 70 m of each
plot center for a period of 5 min. All surveys were con.
ducted during the 4 h immediately following sunrise.
Only birds within the riparian corridor were counted.
and bird densities were determined from the dimensions
of the corridor within each 70 m -radius plot. Most of
the birds recorded on these surveys were thought to be
breeding, or at least over -summering, in the riparian
corridors of the study area. Noise from traffic or flowing
water was not thought to have a significant effect on the
detection of birds during these surveys.
2.2. Measurement of environmental variables
At each plot, a number of environmental variables
were measured for use in multiple linear regression
models predicting the densities of individual bird spe.
cies. The diameters of all woody stems > 1 cm in dia.
meter were measured within a radius of 35 m from the
plot center (excluding areas outside the riparian corri-
dor). The stem density of all woody plants (TOTST.
DEN) and of native (NATSTDEN) and exotic
(EXOSTDEN) species, as well as the proportion of
stems that were native (NATPROST), were calculated.
Because there were several bird species whose abun-
dance might be related directly to the presence or
abundance of live oaks Quercus agrifolia and Q. wish.
zenii, the density of oak stems (OAKSTDEN) was also
calculated for each plot.
For the purposes of measuring habitat structure, five
non -overlapping subplots 10 m in diameter were estab-
lished on each plot, randomly positioned within 35 m of
the plot center. Vegetation volume and foliage height
diversity were measured at 10 stations along each of two
transects in each subplot, laid out approximately paral-
lel and perpendicular to the stream channel. Totai
vegetation volume (TOTALTVV) and the volume of
native (NATIV7 VV) and exotic vegetation (EXO-
TITVV) were measured using a 4.5 to pole following the
methods of Mills et al. (1991). The number of stations
having vegetation within I I different vertical strata (0-
0.5, 0.6-1.0, 1.1-2.5, 2.6-4.01 4.1-6.5, 6.6-9.0, 9.1-12.0.
12.1-18.0, 18.1-24.0, 24.1-32.0, and > 32 m), deter-
mined using the pole or a range finder (Erdelen, 1984).
was used to calculate foliage height diversity (FOLHT-
DIV; MacArthur and MacArthur, 1961).
Using the graduated pole (for low canopies) or a
clinometer, canopy height (CANOPYHT) was mea-
sured at the upstream and downstream ends of the
transect running parallel to the channel on each subplot.
for a total of 10 measurements/plot. At these same 10
locations, a spherical densiometer was used to measure
canopy cover (CANOPCOV) facing north, south, east.
and west at each point for a total of 40 measurements
plot. All structural vegetation parameters were mea-
sured from June to early August.
co`n-
uise.
tte�,
dons
it. o'f
o be
uiaia
1 the
bles
iiou
spe.
dia.
the
)rri.
ST_
otic
Of
ted
un.
or
rsli-
tlso
ive
ab-
of
of
wo
al-
tal
Of
:O
the
,)ns
(0-
eo-
;4),
:T-
S.C. Not tenbom,( Biological Covvu ration 88 t 1999! 289.199
The area of the portion of a 50 in radius circle around
each plot center that fell within the riparian corridor
(including the stream channel) was used as a surrogate
for riparian corridor width (RIPWIDTH), as the irre-
gular shape of the corridor on some plots precluded
direct measurement of corridor width. Cats were coun-
ted during bird surveys, and cat density (CATDENS)
was determined according to the variable circular -plot
method.
Within a radius of 500 in of the plot center, the per-
cent cover by pavement (PAVED500), buildings
(BUILD500), and total artificial surface (ARTIF500)
were estimated using aerial photos. In addition, the dis-
tance from the plot center to the nearest building (DIS-
TBUIL), paved road (DISTPAVE), and bridge crossing
the stream (DISTBRID) were measured and the num-
ber of bridges crossing the stream within 500 in of the
plot center (BRIDG500), as measured along the center
of the stream channel, was determined.
:.3. Data analysis
The total number of bird species observed on each
plot during the study period was calculated. Because
adjacent land use and urbanization may influence spe-
cies belonging to different migratory status groups in
different ways (Rottenbom, 1997), I distinguished per-
manent residents and summer residents recorded on
each plot. For the purposes of this study, summer resi-
dents were defined as those species for which nearly all
individuals winter south of the study area, mostly Neo -
tropical migrants. Permanent residents were defined as
those species for which a substantial proportion of the
population is present in the study area year-round. The
density of birds on each plot (in terms of the number of
individuals recorded within the effective detection dis-
tance per 10 ha per census) was calculated by season for
these two groups and for all species combined.
Stepwise multiple regression was used to relate pat-
terns of variation in a subset of nine environmental
variables to the observed patterns of species richness
(after square root transformation) and density among
plots, both overall and separately for permanent and
summer residents, by finding the regression models
containing the optimal combination of explanatory
environmental variables. These nine environmental
variables (Table 4), found to be closely associated with
riparian bird community structure based on a previous
study (Rottenbom, 1997), measured native and exotic
vegetation characteristics, riparian corridor width, and
the degree of urbanization surrounding the bird -survey
plots. The stepwise forward selection method used in
these regressions included only those variables which
were significant in the model at p < 0.01.
A bootstrap technique was used to test the sensitivity
of these regression models to variation in the plots used
291
to construct the models. From the pool of 68 plots. I
randomly selected plots one at a time, with replacement
of each selection back into the pool of potential plots,
until I had a "bootstrap dataset" consisting of 68 plots.
I created 20 such bootstrap datasets and then used each
one in a stepwise multiple regression, using the forward
selection process to identify environmental variables
significant to the model (p < 0.05). 1 then counted the
number of bootstrap regression models in which each
environmental variable was included as significant. If
the variables selected as significant in the original model
were selected repeatedly in the bootstrap models, then
confidence in the results of the original regression model
would be high. Conversely, if the variables selected in
the bootstrap models were consistently different from
those in the original model or showed no consistency,
then the actual importance of the variables selected in
the original model would be questionable. This boot-
strap technique was carried out separately for each of
the six stepwise multiple regressions involving species
richness or total density.
Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) was used
to identify the environmental variables that were most
strongly associated :with the structure of the entire
riparian bird community and to determine the locations
of species along aces composed of this subset of nine
environmental variables. For these ordinations, species
data consisted of the density of each bird species recor-
ded on at least four plots at each of the 68 plots. Cor-
relations among environmental variables were also
calculated. A Monte Carlo simulation with 99 permu-
tations was used to test the significance of the overall
ordination and each of the first two axes.
Although CCA gives some information on the habitat
associations of individual bird species, its main goal is
to find the environmental variables that best explain the
structure of the overall bird community. Therefore,
stepwise multiple regression was used to identify the
environmental parameters most important in determin-
ing the distribution of individual bird species among the
plots. In these regressions, the densities of each species
recorded on at least four plots were regressed against
the entire suite of 20 environmental variables that were
measured. and forward selection was used to identify
the variables that were significant in each regression
(P < 0.01).
3. Results
Of 75 bird species recorded on the 68 plots (Table 1),
52 were considered permanent residents and 23 were
summer residents. Species richness ranged from eight to
30 species/plot, and density ranged from 141.7 to 593.7
individuals/10 ha. Most species were rare or sparsely
distributed in the study area. 31 species were recorded
292 S.C. Rottenborn I Biafogieal Conservation 88 (1999) 289-299
Table 1
Bird species recorded on 70 in -radius riparian plots (n-68 plots)
species
No. of Man
plots density'
species
No. of Mean
plots density
Anna's hummingbird Cahpte wine
68
25.18.1.32
American kestrel Falco spoe.eriuf
13
13720.36
American robin Tardus migrarmie
66
30.15* 1.60
Grxn heron Buroridts rirescenf
12
1.5820.47
Bushat Prnlviparus mirrfmus
65
54.422 2.92
Wilson's warbler Wilsanfa pusdk°
11
13120.47
House finch Carpodacus mezicmuf
60
31.0022.21
Bun swallow Nirodo wtirO
10
0.912032
Song sparrow Wasp- melodic
56
16.852127.
Amman crow Corvus brachmh)nchof
10
1.4120.45
California towhee Ptpflo crvudfs
55
17.72_ 1.37
Stdler's jay Cyamocitta talkrP
10
2.4020.75
Black -beaded grosbak Pheucricus w1anocephahab
54
239922.11
Brewees blackbird Euphagus c)a ocepholus°
9
4.0921.73
Northern mockingbird Minors pobalonof
52
8.0420.78
Water, tuag" Pkanga hdorfcarob
9
0.701026
Bewick's wren Th,) a s bemickif
51
13.7221.16
Red -winged blackbird Agelwus phomweuf
8
1.60 * 033
Black phoebe Sa),a,,us nigricans
51
13352131
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jwwwmsif
8
0.69 *025
Pacific -slope flycatcher Empda diffiedisb
49
2134 * 2.12
Rock dove Cohembo fine
7
3.01 * 1.17
Western scrub- y Aphelocoma californice
48
IOA921.06
Turkey whore Catharses acre
7
0.86*0.34
European starling Siurnus vulgaris'
47
19.1121.77
Western wood -pewee Cwmiopus snrdfbdwb
7
129 * 031
Chestnut -backed chickadee Poecife mfescros
41
12.96* 1.45
Dark -eyed junco Junto hyemalif
6
1.163032
Mourning dove Zemafda macrourE
38
143321.98
California thrasher To2osramw re&Yivunf
6
1.73 *0.70
Black-chinued hummingbird Archilochus aksmdn°
37
15.%3224
America goldfinch Carbvela tragus'
5
13630.56
l.essu goldfinch Carbrelu psdtrlc
36
93921.49
Violet-gtan swallow Taeh)Yketa 1h4lauiWb
5
0.53 * 026
Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescent`
36
82321.10
Hutton's vireo Vim hutromf
5
0.8530.39
Warbling vireo Vbee gBvuP
35
10.83= 1.50
Common yellowthsoat Georhlypis trwhaf
4
0.703037
Mallard Anas plaryrh)wchof
30
8.452129
Willow flycatcher Enpidwus tratlliP
4
0.3230.16
Bullock's oriole Icterus buflxkiP
29
431:0.70
western kingbird Tvrvu to vatteaksb
3
0.16*0.10
Nuttalrs woodpecker Pkoides %utiafif
27
6.08 1.06
Acom woodpecker Meknerpes formicfroruf
3
0.82*0.47
Browaheaded cowbud Molothrus ares
26
6.12 * 1.10
Grit egret Ardeo a1W
3
0.28 *0.17
Oak titmouse Baeolophm tnomarusc
26
8.14 1.39
Blsckcowtxd night -heron Nycricorar nyctkorasc
3
02710.16
Yellow warbler Denbaca petechkb
26
6.62* 1.23
Pied -billed grebe Podflvmbur podiceps`
3
0.2420.13
spotted towhee PipBo mandatue
25
729 2126
Tree swallow Tachym eta bimkrb
2
0.08 * 0.06
Belied kingfisher Cervk alcyoe
24
32410.67
Hairy woodpecker Picoides vD/wue
2
OAl *033
Swainsoa's thrush Cadw us ustdatus
21
3.70*041
Common merganser Merges mergmuef
2
025x020
California quail CalIW* cisfforroce
20
6.021 1.19
Brava creeper Certhk omerkane
2
03730.43
Clift swallow Ptimchefidon pyrrhonotab
18
3.74 * 1.14
Olive -sided flycatcher Cowapus empelP
2
0.17 20.12
Allen's hummingbird Seksphorus sarin°
17
33120.85
Western bluebird Sklk memema-
1
0.07
N. rough -winged swallow Sielgidopterv2 smipenniO
16
2.04 *0.68
Great horned owl Bubo .irrut m us-
1
0.17
Ash-tbroated flycatcher Mykrchuv ckermcemP
16
327*0.81
We= sareabowl Oma kmnicoisiP
I
0.09
Red -shouldered hawk Buteo fineotus
15
1.5020.38
American coot Fdica su a ieanae
1
0.56
White -breasted nuthatch Sitta caroltnearis
15
32020.77
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperiP
1
0.09
Hooded oriole Ides cucdlaturb
14
2.5820.70
American redstart Setophaga ruticillab
1
0.19
Northern flicker Colaptes maatuf
14
3.13=0.82
Yellow -breasted chat Ieterk viremP
1
0.06
House sparrow Passer domesticus`
13
3.07*0.85
• Density -umber of individuds'10 his (2 standard error).
• Indicates summer resident.
I Indicates permanent resident.
on fewer than 10 plots, and only 19 species were recor-
ded on more than half of the 68 plots.
3.1. Species richness and density multiple regression
models
The three regression models for species richness were
highly significant, having three to four significant vari-
ables in each model and with rz values of 0.58-0.77
(Tables 2 and 3). Each of the three regression models for
density had only two significant variables lower and r7
values (0.25-0.34) than the models for species richness,
but all were still highly significant.
Native vegetation volume (NATIVTVV), which was
highly correlated (negatively) with exotic vegetation
volume (EXOTITVV, Table 4), was included in all six
models and was positively associated with species rich-
ness and density. The number of bridges within 500 in
of a plot (BRIDG500) was the most important variable
in all five of the models in which it appeared, explaining
more of the variation in each model than any other
variable. In the only model in which BRIDG500 did not
appear, the distance to the nearest bridge (DISTBRID).
which was highly correlated (negatively) with the num-
ber of bridges near a plot, was the most important
variable. In all models, species richness and densit)'
decreased as the number of bridges near a plot or
proximity of a plot to the nearest bridge increased_
Total species richness and permanent resident species
richness increased significantly as the distance to a
rtal SR
rmaner
Sumer r
nal DE
rmaner
aamer t
• Letts
p < OX
this: 3
oportic
r perm
vee in
analyse`
EXOTI
ARTIT
DL%TB
Th
tht
36
47
47
32
45
75
73
26
53
3
7
4
a
`2
'0
i6
:6
'9
7
6
0
7
7
6
3
is
3
A
3
2
S.C. Roumborn/ Bkkgkul Conservation (19991289-299 293
Table 2
(regression coefficients and y -intercepts for multiple regression equations of species richness (SR) and density (DENS) versus environmental varia-
bles'
Table 3
Proportion of variance (r2) explained by variables selected in multiple liocar regressions of riparian bird species richness and density. Separate results
for permanent residents. summer residents, and all species. The proportion of valiance explained by the model containing all significant variables is
given in the total section
Intercept
BRIDG500
NATIYIW
DISTBUIL RIPWIDTH DISTBRID f°
Total SR
3.67
-020b
0.29b
O.Olb 0.001a - 51.5c
Peremment resident SR
3.61
-0.I5b
0.18b
0.0tb - - 29.8c
Summer resident SR
1.37
-0.196
0.33a
- 0.001b - 27.2e
Told DENS
226.35
-24.80b
56.666
- - - 20.2c
Permanent resident DENS
148.64
-
32-Va
- - 0.07a 11.4c
Summer resident DENS
3331
-9.592
23.511
- - - 16.6c
• Letters following the regression coeffcieats indicate the significance
of each variable in the overall regression equation (a, p < 0.01, b, p < 0.001,
G p < 0.0001).
0.09
-
-
b F -values are for tats of significance of the overall regression equations
-
Table 3
Proportion of variance (r2) explained by variables selected in multiple liocar regressions of riparian bird species richness and density. Separate results
for permanent residents. summer residents, and all species. The proportion of valiance explained by the model containing all significant variables is
given in the total section
building (DISTBUIL) increased, while total species
richness and summer resident species richness increased
significantly with increasing riparian corridor width
(RIPWIDTH).
The bootstrap regressions confirmed that the original
regression models were not very sensitive to variations
in the plots used to construct the models (Table 5). The
variables found to be significant in the original models
were selected as significant in 14-20 of the bootstrap
models. In contrast, variables that were not included as
significant in the original models appeared in no more
than 10 of the bootstrap models. These results indicate
that the variables found to be significant in the original
models were indeed the variables most closely asso-
ciated with species richness and density.
3.2. Canonical correspondence analysis
The results of the CCA of the riparian bird commu-
nity appear in Fig. 1 as a biplot of the species scores
Species richness
Density
Permanent
Summer
Total
permanent
Summer
Tout
BRID05M
0.41
0.35
0.49
-
0.21
0.25
NATTVTVV
0.05
0.08
0.14
0.08
0.13
0.13
DISTBUIL
0.12
-
0.09
-
-
-
RIPWIDTH
-
0.13
0.05
-
-
-
DISTBRID
-
-
0.18
-
-
Totat
0.58
0.56
0.77
0.26
0.34
0.38
Table 4
Correlations among
environmental variables used in multiple linear regressions or
bird species richness and density and
in canonical correspondence
analyst
NATS- EXOS-
NATI-
EXOT-
ARTI- DIST.
DIST-
BRID-
RIPW-
MEN MEN
VTVv
rPVv
F500 BUIL
BRID
G500
IDTH
NATSTDEN
t.00 -0.13
0.42
-0.35
-0.16 0.21
0.18
-0.14
0.11
EXOSTDEN
- 1.00
-0.24
0.34
0.13 -0.17
-0.01
0.13
-0.23
NATIVfVV
- -
1.00
-0.63
-0.19 0.28
0.29
-0.26
029
EXOTrrW
- -
-
1.00
-0.08 -0.15
-0.18
0.1'3
0.02
ARTTF500
- -
-
-
1.00 -0.55
-0.15
0.33
-0.45
DISTBUIL
- -
-
-
- 1.00
0.15
-0.28
0.19
DISTBRID
- -
-
-
- -
1.00
-0.57
0.17
BRIDG500
- -
-
-
- -
-
1.00
-0.31
RIPwtDTH
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
1.00
building (DISTBUIL) increased, while total species
richness and summer resident species richness increased
significantly with increasing riparian corridor width
(RIPWIDTH).
The bootstrap regressions confirmed that the original
regression models were not very sensitive to variations
in the plots used to construct the models (Table 5). The
variables found to be significant in the original models
were selected as significant in 14-20 of the bootstrap
models. In contrast, variables that were not included as
significant in the original models appeared in no more
than 10 of the bootstrap models. These results indicate
that the variables found to be significant in the original
models were indeed the variables most closely asso-
ciated with species richness and density.
3.2. Canonical correspondence analysis
The results of the CCA of the riparian bird commu-
nity appear in Fig. 1 as a biplot of the species scores
294 S.C. Rottenborn J Biological Conservation 88 (1999)189-299
along the first two axes of the ordination. Although of the variance in the species data, respectively, and the
there was little overall variance in the species data, as vectors for the environmental variables and the species
noted by the relatively low eigenvalues for the first two scores together explained 49% of the variance in the
axes (0.25 and 0.08), the ordination explained this var- species -environment relationships along the first axis and
iance fairly well. The first two axes explained 14 and 5% 17% of the variance on the second axis. The species -
Table 5
Results of the bootstrap regressions of species richness (SR) and density (DENS) vs environmental variables
BRIDG5W NATIVTVV DISTBUIL RIPWIDTH DISTBRID Other^
Total SR
20'
20
IS 16 - 6
Permanent resident SR
20
19
15 - - 8
Summer resident SR
20
18
- 20 - 10
Total DENS
17
20
- - - 10
Permanent resident DENS
-
14
- - 20 10
Summer resident DENS
16
19
- - - 8
' For each of the variables that were included as significant in one of the original regression models, this table gives the number of bootstrap
equations (out of a total of 20) in which the variable appeared as significant (p < 0.05)
e Other indicates the maximum number of bootstrap equations in which a variable that was not included as significant in the original model was
found to be significant.
Cliff! swallowI barn swallow
rW~ngW blackbird
• northern roupftwuhpe0
swallow
are urb
common Yellowmroat
negativ(
require
highly t
• turkeywnure
Axis
on vol
hooded oriole
an hharon
II,
California towhee 0
Atten's hurd
EXOTff W
:gBOB Arnencan goldfinch ARTIF500
'tation
lesser gold
aoh • - einch •mallard
C871v-se
"stem tanager preo-daed pre Mem notlorhpbiro
house s
DISTBRID NATSTDEN sotgsparrow Ibeke fisher few
downy er �1 ushtit r. starting
area -crow Anna'a hummingbird Axis
.the negi
DISTBUIL ed proabeak • Bewdgrs 'hmwilheaded cowbird
A robin
SttVCtu:
Buuodrs oriole • • •
GYtaria thresher lope tlyeatcher •• ldered hawk • btack<ltinrwd hhumminpbird.
Pacific -a
• northern ticker •
Gleomia u • great a" • • we'blk neo -0ec'"d chickadee
Wes oak tlt.t>we•
33. Mt
tyca tdfer• •NumC •
Species
western kingbird • darto-e � j � . •Anse kestrel EXOSTDEN house sparrow•
Of th
spotted towhee
ash -Wonted fhy&lcher• . fa jay
four plc
Swale blush • • Yellow we r
- tbnsm
westernwoodyewee BRIDG500
_Hese si
• Hubm s vireo Brewers blackbird •
C011tras
RIPWIDTH •wh"e-0reasted tell ewuson'swarbler
aificant
• -green swallow
> 0.(
• acom er
al
NATIVTVV rock dove•
oat n;
Axis II
to
then
Fig. L Canonical correspondence analysis ordination diagram for the riparian bird community. Points correspond to the sorra of individual species
as a function of the axes, which we linear combinations of environmental variables. Arrows represent the environmental variables included in the
model best representing the distribution of the species among the plots. The lengths of the arrows indicate the relative importance of each environ-
dis
mental variable in the model and the direction of each arrow relative to the axes indicates how well the environmental variable is correlated with
Bases
each axis. The location of each bird species relative to the arrows indicates the environmental conditions associated with the occurrence of each
'Otis, t
species.
a re,.
S.C. RottenbomI Rialoaitul ConserrXion 88 (1999) 289-299
environment correlations, indicating the ability of the
environmental variables to explain the variation in bird
community composition, were 0.87 for the first axis and
0.73 for the second. The overall ordination and the first
and second axes were significant (p = 0.01).
Native vegetation volume (NATIVTVV), riparian
corridor width (RIPWIDTff), distance to a building
(DISTBUIL), number of bridges (BRIDG500), and
percent cover by artificial surface around a plot
(ARTIF500), the most important variables in the mul-
tiple regressions of species richness and density, were
again the variables most strongly associated with bird
community structure (Fig. 1). The first axis of the ordi-
nation was influenced primarily by number of bridges
(BRIDG500) and artificial surface cover (ARTIF500) in
one direction and by native vegetation volume
(NATIVTVV), riparian corridor width (RIPWIDTH),
distance to a building (DISTBUIL), and distance to a
bridge (DISTBRID) in the opposite direction. This axis
seems to separate the plots in narrow riparian corridors
and in the most heavily urbanized areas from plots in
less urbanized areas andior in broader riparian corri-
dors. Most of the species on the positive end of this axis
arc urban -adapted species, while many of those on the
negative end are sensitive to human disturbance or
require specific habitat features that are not present in
highly urbanized areas.
Axis II was affected most strongly by native vegeta-
tion volume. Many of the species on the positive end of
axis II, which is negatively correlated with native vege-
tation volume, are species generally associated with
early-seral habitats. With the exception of rock dove,
house sparrow, and Brewer's blackbird, the species on
the negative end of axis I1 are generally associated with
structurally complex habitats.
3.3. ,Multiple linear regression models for individual bird
species
Of the 61 bird species that were recorded on at least
four plots, significant regression models (p < 0.01) were
constructed for 48 species (Table 6); the r2 values for
these significant models ranged from 0.08 to 0.64. In
contrast, the densities of 13 species were not sig-
nificantly related to any of the environmental variables
(p> 0.01). Of the 21 environmental variables used in
these analyses, 17 were included in models for at least
one species. The variables that were significant in the
most models, and which therefore seemed to be impor-
tant to the most species, were the number of bridges
within 500 in (BRIDG500), riparian corridor width
(RIPWIDTH), total vegetation volume (TOTALTVV),
and distance to the nearest bridge (DISTBRID).
Based on the results of the CCA and these regres-
sions, the species whose populations are likely to decline
as a result of increasing urbanization in the study area
295
("sensitive" species) and those whose populations are
likely to remain stable or increase as a result of urbani-
zation barring extensive habitat destruction ("tolerant"
species) were identified (Table 7).
e7 7 .�I ,
4.1. Patterns of association between birds and
urbanization
Changes in riparian bird communities resulting from
urbanization may be caused by a number of factors.
The most extreme impacts on riparian bird commu-
nities, which result from the outright destruction of
riparian vegetation, are due primarily to the loss of
structural resources (Rottenborn, 1997). However,
where riparian woodlands remain intact, other urbani-
zation -related factors may, influence these bird commu.
nities. This study differs from most previous studies of
the effects of urbanization on birds in one major respect:
whereas most studies have examined the direct effects of
habitat alteration, this study focused on the ways in
which intact remnants of riparian habitat have been
affected by urbanization on adjacent lands.
Variation in avian species richness, density, and com-
munity structure was closely related to environmental
variables associated with urbanization. Plots closer to
developed areas generally had lower species richness
than those farther from development, and the densities
of a number of species increased as proximity to roads
and buildings decreased. The percent cover by buildings
or by all artificial surfaces within 500 m of a plot was
associated with the densities of some species but was not
as important as the distance to the nearest building or
road. Although some urban -adapted species, such as
mournine dove and northern mockingbird, were posi-
tively associated with the percent cover by artificial sur-
face around these plots, most species were negatively
related to these variables. These results are similar to
those of Friesen et al. (1995), who found that the den-
sity of housing around forest patches in Ontario was
strongly associated with the species richness and abun-
dance of Neotropical migrants nesting in the woodlots,
indicating that urbanization can have substantial
impacts on habitat remnants that are not directly
altered.
Along streams in the Santa Clara Valley, cat density
tends to be higher adjacent to residential and industrial
areas than adjacent to undeveloped agricultural areas
(Rottenbom, 1997). The number of people intruding
into riparian corridors is probably also higher where
setbacks between riparian habitats and developed areas
are narrow and where housing density is higher on
adjacent lands. Birds using riparian corridors very close
to roads and buildings may be affected by noise and
296 S.C. Rorrendrorn / Biological Con ermlion 88 (1999) 289-299
Tabic 6
Significant (p < 0.01) positive (+) and negative (-) relationships between habitst/land use variables and bird densities
ITtl4 ewn.rl m e.:r F�r�
C
C
F
T
N
N
N
E
O
D
D
D
B
P
A
B
R
A
A
O
O
A
A
A
X
A
I
I
I
U
A
R
R
I
N
N
L
T
T
T
T
0
K
S
S
S
I
V
TI
P
O
0
H
A
I
S
P
S
S
T
T
T
L
E
I
D
W
P
P
T
L
V
T
R
T
T
P
B
B
D
D
F
G
I
C
Y
D
T
T
D
O
D
D
A
U
R
5
5
5
5
D
O
H
I
V
V
E
S
E
E
V
1
I
0
0
0
0
T
V
T
V
V
V
N
T
N
N
E
L
D
0
0
0
0
H
rt
Great egret
+
0.263
Green heron
+
0,121
Black -crowned night -heron
ns'
Turkey vulture
+
0,094
Mallard
+
-
0.203
Red -shouldered hawk
+
+
0.210
Red-tailed hawk
+
0.128
American kestrel
+
0.093
California quail
+
-
+
0.557
Rock dove
-
+
0.365
Mourning dove
+
0,081
Black -chinned hummingbird
-
+
0.172
Anna's hummingbird
-
0.094
Allen's bummingbird
ns
Belted kingfisher
as
Acorn woodpecker
as
Nuttall's woodpecker
+
_
0,320
Downy woodpecker
+
-
0.143
Northern Bicker
+
-
0.238
Western wood -pewee
+
+
+
0.231
Willow flycatcher
as
Pacific -slope flycatcher
+
+
_
0.322
Black phoebe
-
-
0.102
Asb-throated flycatcher
-
+
+
0.346
Western kingbird
-
-
-
-
+
0.577
Hutton's vireo
+
-
0.340
Warbling vireo
+
+
-
0,246
Steller's jay
+
+
+
0.228
Western scrub -jay
us
American crow
as
Swainson's thrush
+
+
0.307
American robin
+
-
0339
Violet -green swallow
+
0.139
N. rough -winged swallow
-
_
0.484
Cliff swallow
-
_
0.321
Barn swallow
-
-
0.575
Chestnut -backed chickadee
+
0.148
Oak titmouse
+
-
+
0.521
Bushtit
+
-
0228
White -breasted nuthatch
+
+ .
+
+
0.610
Bewick's wren
+
+
0.359
California thrasher
-
+
+
0.305
Northers mockingbird
+
0.128
European starling
sac
Yellow warbler
+
-
_
-
+
0.582
Common yellowthroat
ns
Western tanager
as
Spotted towhee
+
+
_
_
+
0.610
California towhee
-
0.194
Song sparrow
+
-
0.354
Dark -eyed junco
+
+
0.263
Black -headed grosbeak
+
_
0.392
Red -winged blackbird
-
+
0.468
Brewer's blackbird
+
0.267
ITtl4 ewn.rl m e.:r F�r�
Table 6-cmid.
S.C. Rottenbon / Biological Conservation 88 (1999)189-299
C C F T N N N E O D D D B P A B R
A A O O A A A X A I I I U A RR I
N N L T T T T O K S S S I V T I P
O O H A 1 S P S S T T T L E i D W
P P T L V T R T T P B B D D FG I
C Y D T T D O D D A U R 5 5 5 5 D
O H 1 V V E S E E V I 1 0 0 0 0 T
V T V V V N T N N E L D 0 0 0 0 H rl
arown-hesded cowbird us
Hooded oriole In
Bullock's oriole + + — 0112
House finch in
Lesser goldfinch _ + 0.127
American goldfinch + 0.081
House sparrow —
+ 0326
M. multiple regression model contains no significant variables.
movements of people and domestic animals on adjacent
lands (Reijnen et al., 1995, 1996), influences that would
not be as great in riparian corridors far from developed
areas. Although this study does not identify a minimum
buffer width required for the maintenance of the integ-
rity of riparian bird communities, these results indicate
that broader buffers better maintain riparian bird spe-
cies richness.
Bird species richness and density were negatively
related to the abundance and proximity of bridges. This
relationship may be a direct result of disturbance from
traffic, noise, or human ingress, or a result of barriers to
free movement across gaps between sections of riparian
habitat (Lens and Dhondt, 1994; Machtans et al., 1996).
Alternatively, the abundance of bridges may be simply a
proxy variable for the overall degree of urbanization
around a plot, therefore representing a number of different
factors acting in concert to influence riparian bird com-
munities. Bridge locations did not seem to be influenced
significantly by topography or other natural features
that might impact these riparian bird communities.
Of the species that were negatively associated with the
abundance or close proximity of bridges, sedentary
species such as song sparrow and California towhee
might be affected by the fragmentation of riparian cor-
ridors by bridges, and species such as great egret,
American kestrel, black -headed grosbeak, warbling
vireo, and Pacific -slope flycatcher may be averse to the
noise and disturbance associated with bridges. Three
species were positively associated with bridge abun-
dance; rock dove and house sparrow are exotic species
that nest under bridges, while Brewer's blackbird is an
abundant urban -adapted species in the study area.
The positive relationship of bird species richness and
density with native vegetation is to be expected since
exotic vegetation is often deficient in structural and
dietary resources required by many native animal
297
Table 7
Predicted sensitivity of bird species to urbanization in the Santa Clan
Valley
relerant specie{
:Mallard
Red -shouldered hawk
Rock dove
Mourning dove
Anna's hummingbird
Black -chinned hummingbird
Allen's hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Black phoebe
Northern rough -winged swallow
Baca swallow
Cliff swallow
Western scrub -jay
Sensitive species
Pied -billed grebe
Green heron
Black -crowned night -heron
Great egret
Turkey vulture
Red-tailed hawk
American kestrel
California quail
Acorn woodpecker
Downy woodpecker
Nuttall's woodpecker
Northern Bicker
Ash -throated flycatcher
Western wood -pewee
Willow flycatcher
Pacific -slope flycatcher
Western kingbird
Violet -green swallow
Steller's jay
American now
Bushtit
American robin
Northern mockingbird
European starling
California towhee
Dark<yed junco
Brewer's blackbird
Brown -headed cowbird
Hooded oriole
House finch
House sparrow
Chestnut -backed chickadee
Oak titmouse
White -breasted nuthatch
Bewick's wren
Swaimmi s thrush
California thrasher
Warbling vireo
Hutton s vireo
Yellow warbler
Common yesowthroat
Wilson's warbler
Western tanager
Black -headed grosbeak
Spotted towhee
Song sparrow
Red -winged blackbird
Bullock's oriole
Leser goldfinch
American goldfinch
• Abundance of "tolerant" species is expected to increase or remain
stable in riparian habitats following urbanization, while abundance of
"sensitive" species is expected to decline following urbanization.
298 S.C. Rottenborn/Biological Conservation 88 (1999) 289-299
species (Anderson et al., 1977; Mills et al., 1989). The
abundance of exotic vegetation in riparian areas in the
Santa Clara Valley is substantially higher in urban areas
adjacent to residential and industrial lands than in rural
areas adjacent to agricultural land (Rottenborn. 1997).
Likewise, the width of the riparian corridor was Sig-
nificant in several regression models and in the CCA.
While some species may actually have been attracted to
larger expanses of habitat, broader corridors likely
contained greater habitat heterogeneity and more later -
successional tree species (at the edges of the corridors)
than narrow ones, and broader strips of riparian wood-
land may have provided a greater buffer from human
influences to birds nesting in the interior of the corridor.
Examination of the CCA and the significant relation-
ships between environmental variables and the densities
of individual bird species revealed several patterns.
Neotropical migrants, such as Swainson's thrush, yellow
warbler, western wood -pewee, Wilson's warbler, willow
flycatcher, and warbling vireo, were positively related to
broad riparian corridors and high native vegetation
volume and negatively related to variables associated
with intense development. Although a few Neotropical
migrants that use exotic vegetation frequently. (e.g.
black -chinned hummingbird, Allen's hummingbird, and
hooded oriole) were present in heavily urbanized areas,
the majority of Neotropical migrants seemed to show an
aversion to riparian habitat in developed areas, as has
been reported elsewhere (Friesen et al., 1995).
Species that glean insects from foliage or bark showed
a strong preference for less urbanized areas, possibly
reflecting low insect densities on heavily urbanized plots
having abundant exotic vegetation (Mills et al., 1989).
In contrast. ground -foraging and seed -eating species
showed no clear patterns of distribution relative to
urbanization. Most cavity -nesting species displayed a
clear negative association with more urbanized plots;
this may be due to a shortage of older trees with cavities
or to competition with European starlings, which were
positively associated with urbanization. Most of the
species that nest on or near the ground, including Cali-
fornia thrasher, California quail, spotted towhee, and
Bewick's wren, were also negatively related to urbani-
zation, possibly due to predation by cats and other pre-
dators in urban areas.
41. Conservation of bird diversity in riparian habitats
In many areas, urbanization is likely to continue to
spread in the next century (US Department of the
Interior, 1994), subjecting riparian systems currently in
rural or natural areas to detrimental impacts. The fore-
going relationships allow one to predict how further
urbanization could affect riparian bird communities in
the future. Thus, the densities of most obligate riparian
species. Neotropical migrants, foliage and bark -foraging
insectivores, ground -nesting birds, native cavity -nesters.
and oak -associated species are likely to decline with the
encroachment of bridges, adjacent development, and
other elements of built landscapes.
However, some of the detrimental effects of urbani.
zation on riparian bird communities can be minimized
with proper planning. The single most important step
that can be taken to conserve riparian bird communities
in the face of urbanization is to minimize development
in and along floodplain by maintaining broad buffers
of undeveloped land between developed areas and
riparian habitats. Habitat restoration efforts, particu.
larly those that broaden riparian corridors and link
fragments of riparian habitat, would augment habitat
area and enhance the value of existing habitat by further
buffering riparian birds from human influences outside
the corridor. Where development has occurred in close
proximity to riparian habitats, efforts to minimize direct
human disturbance of riparian plant and bird commu-
nities (e.g. by restricting access to riparian habitats) and
replace exotic plants with native species would also
benefit riparian bird communities.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported financially by grants from
the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and D. and K.
Blau, and by P. R. Ehrlich. I thank P. R. Ehrlich, C.
Boggs, A. E. Launer, L. Moses, B. N. K. Davis, J.
Marchant, and an anonymous reviewer for comments
on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
References
Aldrich, J.W., Coffin, R.W.. 1980. Breeding bird populations from
forest to suburbia after thirty-seven years. American Birds 34. r7.
Anderson, B.W., Higgins, A.E., Ohmart. R.D., 1977. Avian use al'
saluiedar communities in the lower Colorado River valley. In:
Johnson, R.R., Jones, DA., (Eds.), Importance, Preservation. and
Management of Riparian Habitats. US Department of the Interior
Forest Service General Technical Report RM43, pp. 128-136.
Beissinger, S.R., Osbome, D.R., 1982. Effects of urbanization on
avian community organization. Condor 84, 7543.
Blair, R.B.,19%. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban
gradient. Ecological Applications 6, 506-519.
Cubbedge, A.W., Nlon, C.H., 1993. Adjacent land use effects on the
Good plain forest bird community of Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. Natural Areas Journal 13, 220.
DeGraaf. R.M., Wentworth, J.M., 1981. Urban bird communities and
habitats in New England. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife Conference 46, 396-413.
Emlen, J.T., 1974. An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizonaw
derivation, structure, regulation. Condor 76, 184-197.
Erdelen, M., 1984. Bird communities and vegetation structure: 1.
Correlations and comparisons of simple and diversity, indics^-
Oecologia 61, 277-284.
Finch. D.M., 1989. Habitat use and habitat overlap of riparian bird.
in three elevational zones. Ecology 70.866-880.
Friesen, L.E., Eagles, P.FJ., Mackay, R.l., 1995. Effects of residential
development on forest -dwelling Neotropical migrants songbird
Conservation Biology 6.1409-1414.
li.
ed
cep
es
nt
:rs
id
u-
Ik
3t
=r
ie
se
CC
u -
:d
;O
M
i.
1.
LS
:m
1.
of
In:
nd
:or
on
an
.he
nal
rad
an
nes:
ds
:al
:s.
S.C. Rorrenbom f Biological Consenarioa 88 (19991 189-199
Gaines, D.A., 1974. A new took at the nesting riparian avifauna of the
Sacramento Valley, California. Western Birds S. 61-80.
Johnson, R.R.. Haight, L.T., Simpson, J.M., 1977. Endangered spo-
cies vs. endangered habitats: a Concept In: Johnson, R.R.,
Jones, D.A. (Eds.), Importance, Preservation. and Management of
Riparian Habitat: a Symposium, US Department of the Interior
Forest Service General Technical Report RM43, pp. 68-79.
Katibah. E.F.. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central
Valley of California. In: Warner, R.E., Hendrix, K.M. (Eds.), Cali-
fornia Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation. and Productive
Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, pp. 23-29.
Knopf, F.L., 1985. significance of riparian vegetation to breeding
birds across an a titudinal cline. In: Johnson, R.R., Ziebell, C.D.,
Patton, D.R., Ffoliott, P.F.. Harare. R.H. (Eds.), Riparian Eco-
system and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. US
Department of the Interior Forest Service General Technical Report
RM -120, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 105-111.
Knopf, F.L. Johnson, R.R., Rich, T., Samson, F.B., Szaro, R.C.,
1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States.
Wilson Bulletin 100, 272-284.
Lancaster, R.K.. Rees, W.E., 1979. Bird communities and the struc.
ture of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57, 2358-
2368,
Lens, L., Dhondt. A.A.. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the
timing of Crested Tit Paris cristatus natal dispersal. Ibis 135, 147-
152
MacArthur, R.H., MacArthur, J.W., 1961. On bird species diversity.
Ecology 41594-599.
Machtans, C.S.. Villard, M. -A.. Hannon, S.J.. 1996. Use of riparian
buffer strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conservation
Biology 10, 1366-1379.
Mills. G.S.. Dunning Jr., J.B., Bates, J.M., 1989. Effects of urbaniza-
tion on breeding bird community structure in southwestern desert
habitats. Condor 91, 416-429.
Mills, G.S.. Dunning Jr., I.B., Bates. I.M., 1991. The relationship
between breeding bird density and vegetation volume. Wilson Bul-
letin 103, 468-479.
299
Naiman. RJ.. Decamps. H.. Pollock. M., 1993. The role of riparian
corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applica-
tions 3. 209-212.
Ohmart, R.D.. 1994. The effects of human -induced changes on the
avifauna of western riparian habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 15.
27}285.
Reijnen, R, Foppen, R., ter Brisk, C., Thissen, J., 1995. The effects of
car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland: III. Reduction
of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of
Applied Ecology 32, 187-202.
Reijnen, R. Foppen. R., Meeuw=4 H.. 19%. The effects of traffic on
the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Bio-
logical Conservation 75, 255-260.
Reynolds, A.T., Scott, 1.M.. Nussbaum, RA., 1980. A variable cir-
cular -plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82, 309-
313.
Rottenborn. S.C. 1997. The impacts of urbanization on riparian bird
communities in central California. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University.
Smith, F.. 1977. A short review of the status of riparian forests in
California. In: Sands, A. (Ed.), Riparian Forests in California: Their
Ecology and Conservation. Institute of Ecology publication 15, pp.
1-2.
Smith, RJ.. Schaefer, J.M., 1992. Avian characteristics of an urban
riparian strip corridor. Wilson Bulletin 104, 732-738.
Stevens, L.E.. Brown. B.R., Simpson, J.N., Johnson. R.R.. 1977. The
importance of riparian habitat to migrating birds. In: Johnson,
R.R.. Jones, D.A.. (Eds.), Importance, Preservation, and Manage-
ment of Riparian Habitats: A Symposium. US Department of the
Interior Forest Service General Technical Report RM -43, Fort
Collins, CO, pp. 156-164.
US Army Corps or Engineers, 1986. Interim feasibility report and
environmental impact statement: recommended plans for flood
control. Coyote and Berryessa Creeks.
US Department of the Interior, 1994. The impact of federal programs
on wetlands; vol. 11, a report to Congress by the Secretary of the
Interior. Washington, DC.
Received12. Letter rorr, Ron Bottoroff. Nieids of k.dated • •.
1'
This letter is a duplicate of the facsimile discussed in Item 10 above. Please see responses to
Facsimile Received from Ron Bottoroff. Friends of the Santa Clara River dated October 25 1999
above for a complete response to this letter.
19
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, at its
regular meeting held November 23 1999, continued a public hearing on
17. NORTH VALENCIA NO.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION (MASTER CASE NOS. 98-183,
99-055), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-002, ANNEXATION NO. 98-02, SPECIFIC PLAN
(PREZONE) 98-003, ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 98-001, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM) 44831 OPTION A, VTTM 44831 OPTION B, VTTM 52667,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-006, OAK TREE PERMIT 98-020, HILLSIDE REVIEW 99-002,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#98111201— Continued public hearing to consider
approval of the North Valencia No. 2 Specific Plan and North Valencia 2 annexation and related
entitlements. The 596 -acre project is generally located north of Newhall Ranch Road, south of Decoro
Drive and Copper Hill Drive, west of McBean Parkway, and east of Copper Hill Drive.
to November 30, 1999 at 3 p.m. convening in the Council Chamber at 23920 Valencia Blvd.,
Santa Clarita, California, for the purpose of conducting a site tour. At the conclusion of the
site tour, the public hearing will be closed.
Dated this 24' day of November, 1999.
SHARON L. DAWSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
SHARON L. DAWSON, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the
duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita and that on November
24, 1999, she caused the above notice to be posted at the door of the Council Chamber located
at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California.
SHARON L.IDAWSON, CITY CLERK
Santa Clatita California
-contph
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
it
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
U
2;
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
a
BILL I.00KYBR, Attotttey Goo"
of ilia 9tata afCalifotaia
RICHARD M. FRANK
Chief Assistant Art=y General
CRAIG THOMPSON,
Acting Assistant General,
BRIAN HM&A>�g tme Bat No. 90423
SARAH MORRiSM. State Bar No. 143459
"s Gema
300 So�whASS' S1mo Suite Soo
Los Anisias, Cilornia 90013
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae.
People of the State of California
A'fDORSED
`
CC, 4 I
Y, �,rpK
- ---......---...oEpury
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
F FOR THE COUNTY OF XERNN'
UMTSD WATER CONSERVATION
)
DISTRICT. et al.
)
)
Petitiottets,
)
)
COIJNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.
)
)
Respondenu,
)
NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING
j
COMPANY• ct al.
)
Real Parties in Interest. )
)
A LATE C 4SOL :)ATED
—
)
ACTIONS
Consolidated Action
Case No. CV 239324-RDR
Case No. CV 239325-RDR
Case No. CV 239326-RDR
Case No. CV 239327-RDR
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. BILL
LOC"EWS MOTION POP, LEAVE
TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Bearing Date! Novemtmr 4, 1999
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Judge;: Roger D. Randafl
Department: No. 6
i
P, •i' ;a yr Aue`:.�rr nC.�lap<rn lbr i..dvr'to ;irlxar uv Arrrrarc C'i.l i:pr
F :' OFF THE RECORD AT
I l jai /`?R MEETING
ITEM NO. 19
A `6�
4
l i L INTRODiJt' ON
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
1g
19
20
2I j.
22 j
23
24
's5
26
27
28
The People of the State of California, ex tel. Attorney General Sill Lockyer ("Attorney
General"), seek leave to appear as amicus curiae and to file opening and reply briefs in support of
the consolidated actiors filed by the County of Ventuta, Ventura Ccurtry Flood Control Dianna.
Verinn County Air Pollution Control District, the Cities of Fillatore, omwd, San Buuata.
Ventura, and Sants Paula, the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, the 1,Wted Water
Conservation District, the Sierra Club, the Friends of Santa Clara River. the Santa Clsrira
Organization for Planning the Envirorn eInt, California Rural Legal Assistance, Neigtborhootl
Legal Services and the Public Interest Law Projetx(collectively referred to as "Petitioners°'}
against the County of boa Anger and the Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County
(collectively referred to as "Psspondents' .)
The consolidated actions challenge the approvals by the Respondents of the Newhall
Ranch Specific Plan and Water Reclamation Plant ("Newhall Ranch project"), and the
Environmental Impact Report ("EM") prepared for tit project. The consolidated actions include
causes of action under the California Environmental Quality Act (' ,CEQA"), public Resources
Code section 21000 et seq.; the California Plarmirg and Zoning Law, Government Code section
65000 at seq.; and the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section MA 10 Or seq.
The Newhall Ranch project is a proposed development that will have serious adverse
crivironmental consequences which will affect the public and the natural rescurccs of the State.
The project, as described in the ETR, will have up to 22,038 dwelling units, 67 acres of
Commercial development and 256 ecres of business parks. (Administrative Record ;"AR") pp,
66 (5). Over 5, 000 acres of open space in natural condition, which currently provides habitat for
numerous species of sensitive plant and animals species, will be developed as purr Of the project.
(AR pp. 43V,433& 5142.) The Newhall Ranch Projecr will alter streamberis and the flood plain
or rho Santa Clara River and its tributaries (AR pp. 4200.4203,) Nuntercus ridge lines will be
Vruded ;;nd canyons tilled in in urea of unique topography. (AR pp. 4094-4090 ) The Newhall
Ranch project is one of the largest developments ever planned rn Cali fomta.
2
rs & .M In Support of %(;Itwn for Lnve o, Appear as Am;_,,h Curmc
1 The SIR floc the Newhall Ranch project rbcs not adequately discuss the environmental,
2 impacts of the project and does not describe all feasible measures to mitigate the impacts to.the
enviro rrient affecting the public and the nattaal resources of the State. The EM as approved by
4 the Respondents, does not provide sufficient information to alert the public to numerous adverse
3 environmental efforts ofthis pmjat. The Respondents' approval of the Newhall Ranch Project,
6 without fully analyzing and wtillatins- impacts to the environment, has necessarily deprived the
7 public of the right to accurate infortnation about tM project. This failure to provide fall
8 disclosure to the public violates CEQA. The project's failure to comply with CEQA may result
9 in significant and avoidable adverse impacts to the natural resources of the state. The Attorney
10 General oaks to participate as amicm,wriae in these actions to ensure compliance with t!te
11 requirements of CEQA and to protea the natural resotnees of the State.
12 11, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PARTICIPATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IS
13 APPROPMAT1E,
14 A. The Attorney General is Proeeetetr of the State's Natural Resources.
13 The Attorney General has independent yowers under the California Constitution,
16 common law and the Government Code to protect the environment and the natural resources of
17 the State. The Legislature has given the Attorney General a unique role to play in actions
18 concerning pollution and adverse environmental effects which could affect the public or the
19 natural resources of the State. (Gov. Code §§ 12600-126 12.) Government Code section 12600
20 spaLiAeally provides that "(ilt is in the public irtaeat to provide the people of the State of
21 CalifOrnis throuilh the-Anomev General with adequate remedy to protea the rWuml resources of
22 the State of Califbmia from pollution, !mpoitmcnt or dostrnotiori ' (Emphuis added.) These
23 1 provisions are to be liberally construed and applied to promote their underlying purpose. (Gov.
24 Codek, 12633.) In sildition, to facilitate state oversight of compliance with CEQA, the Attorney
23 General must receive copies oral! pleadings alleging facts or issues concerning pollution or
i
26 adverse environmental effects. (Pub, Resources Code § 21167.7; Code: Civ, Proc. § 388.)
27 .'rhe scrvica of pleadings on the Attorney General has the effect of informing that office of e -m 1
29 action and permits the Attorney Grneral to lend it power, prestige. and resources w secure
3,
Ps& AS in Suppon a0wforian for Leavc to Apptar as Amicus Curia
El
5
6
7
8
9
14
11
12
13
14
15
!6!
17
I8
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
2,
?g
compliance with CEQA and other envirenmeaW laws , .: ' (,)c NWarM Y. City of Rosemead,
(1984)155 Cal.App.3d 547, S61.)
The Attorney General's participation m this action i ;,ropriisk, because the Newhall
Ranch Project may malt in pollution or adverse eavi,onmertal effects affecting the public
generally. The EIR for the Newhall Ranch Project specifical! states that the project will have
significant isrtpaets on the state's natural resources. (Alt pp. 5142.5143.) The constracdon of
roads, dwetlirtgs, businesses end other structures for the proiect will impair or destroy the state's
biological r aouxts, eliminating large areas of habitat utilized by riiincrous sensitive plant and
animal species. 13y filling and diverting the porti*m Of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries
located within the project site, the project will impair, pollute or destroy water resources. Thus,
the Newhall Rauch Pmject clearly may impair, poilute or destroy tate natural resources of the
state, as those terms are used in Government Code section 12600.
The Attemey General believes that an arnicas curiae role is appropriate in this case, even
I tbough atetut4r'ly he fa entitled asti matter of right to a much greater role as an intervener in this
action, (Gov, Code §§ 12606, 12612.) The Attorney General believes he should be heard on
those issues of special concern to the People of the State of California, but does rwt believe that it
is necessary to pattieipaie in every aspect of these consolidated actions. Therefore, the Attorney
Goners! seeks leave to appear as amicus out ae in these actions. Coutts hae a allow.cd amicus
curiae briefs to be filed in writ proceedings. (Jersey Mau! MilkArods. Co. v. Drvck (1939) l3
Cai.2d 661, 665.) The Attorney General has participated in the trial court as at, arnicas curiae in
writ proceedings slo0pursttart to CEC)A. (.See. e.g.. Black Property Ownars v, City v(Berkel tv
(19!14) 22 Cal.Apa.4'8 974)
B. The .Attorney General Can Provide Information and Expertise Helpful to the
Court's Consideration of this Matter.
Participation by the Attorney Gentrai in this Leben will be helpful to the court beams:,
unlike the parties to this action, thu Attorney General represents the ,ntarasts ot'tht pe1c of the
State of California and is safeguarding the public's r':ght to participate in the dectstun-mskirs
process fora project such as this, which may result in ware adverse impacts .o the eni,ironmeot
a
Ps a As io S40or. cf kirt:on Por t.vave to Apprar as Am . s Curiar
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17,
18
to
20
21
22
23
24
25
2h
27
28
The Anormy General brings a statewide perspective to this action, wbich is particularly
imperml with respect to the'sa to of water availability for the Nawball Ranch Project. This
issue is of crucial concem to the People of the State of California given the magnitude ofthe
prom water demand for tho Newhall Manch N act, This project and the precedents set by
this project could have enormous impact on water availability for *the pmjwu and water users
statewide. In addition, the Attorney General Iters significant expertise and knowledge regarding
water and wildlife issues which may be a valuable resource to the Court.
In sum, because the Attorney General represents the People of the State of California and
the natural resources of the Slue, he has a special interest in this action and his involvement can
be of assistance to the Court in its cansideratico of this stertor, The Attorney General's motion
far leave to fife an amicus eurise brief is timely and will cause no delay in these acitons,
Therefore, the A*Wmey General should be granted leave to appear as amicus curiae and to file
opening and reply briefs in these consolidated actions.
11111. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PARTICIPATION WILL POCUs ON THE
PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF IMPACTS TO NATURAL
RESOURCES FROM THE PROJECT AND MITIGATION OF THE IMPACTS.
As stated above, the Legislature has provided the Attouncy C'enerat with a special
responsibility for asteguacding the State's name) resources. (Gov, Code § 12600-12612.) if this
motion for leave to file an amicus brief is granted by the Court, the Attorney General wilt argue
that the EIR for the Newhall Ranch Project does rot comply with CEQA.
The Petitioneti ailege that Respondents violated CEQA by approving the Newhall Ranch
Project and the Slit for the project. In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared that the long-
term protection of the environment should be ttu guiding principle in public docisions. (Pub.
Resources Code § 21001(d).) To aehievO these objectives, CEQA rcgndres the preparation of an
environmental Impact report to analyze the significant efr'ects of a project, and to
deseribo measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (pub. Resourees Cotte § 21002.1.1 The
purposir Oran EIR, inter alia, is to provide public agencies and the public in yrenerul with detailed
information abqut the effect of the proposed project or the environment. (Pub. Resources C:odc
S'
IN & As In Support OfM,Kinn far Lcove 10 Appear nq Amkui Cunat•
I 121061; of the universiry pf Cali fomAn
2 (t 988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391.) in Lawel Heightr, the California 5upre= Cotut stressed the
3 necessity o` f1i11 disclosure in the CEQA process:
4 "The EIR is therefore the heart o f CEQA. An Ell, is an
5onvimnrtentai'aiarm bel!' whose purpose is to alert the public ark
6 its rcspomibie officials to enviro» tnemal changes cefore they have
7 reached ecological points of no return. The EFR is ale intended to
8 demonstrate so an apprehtntsive citiaeaty that the agency has, in
9 fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its
10 action. Hecause the MR mast be certified or rejected by public
it officials, It is a dowmeat of a ovotuttability, if CEQA is
12 swupulously followed, he public will know the basis on which its
13 responsible officials either approve or reject envirotttnentaily
14 significant action, and the public, being duty informed, can
15 respond accordingly to action wife which it disagrees. The EIR
16 process protects rot only the environment but &iso informed self-
12 ,government." (kl, at 392.)
is The Attorney Cetera! is particuiary eoncomed with ensuring that the public is feily
19 informed through the CEQA process regarding the potential adverse impacts from the Newhall
26 Ranch project, and that the EIR fully discloses the impacts on water availability and wildlife
21 resources in the area and downstream along the Santa Clara River.
22 The potential environmental impacts of the Newhall Ranch Project are massive.. For
2.1 example, tete EIR statLs that 5,192 acres of habitat will be disturbed by the project, changing it
?G from a natural to a urban condition, (AR pp, 4357.4358.) The EIR md,caies [hitt the
25 implementation e f t4c Specific Pian would remove a portion of the rutural biological resources
24 that exist on site. (AR pp 4353 ? The FIR states that the prnjcct wautd easult in tttc displucen.
stm
27 1 or drstruetion of numorous sensitive art:mal and plant species, and :he destrtic.tion of large areas
2N 1 ofhab:tat for those spv"cies, (AR, pp. 5142-3143.) ?he project would divert and cltannelize '
n i
1 Pr ,4 A. in S"ppurt of Mc!toa for Learn to Appvur Al Awwi;s t'ui jc
V,,K
1 riwnwcus strourts located within the project site. (AR, pp. 4200-4203.) The BER did not
2 adequately analyte the impacts of the Newhall Rotch Project on sensitive plant and animal
3 slpecias, nor did the Respondents adopt all feasible mitigation rnessures to avoid or reduce
i
4 impacts on these species. the Attorney General, as a protector of the raturai resources of the
3 State, iras a responsibility to Mswe that the Newhall Ranch Project ECR, has fylly disclosed all j
6 adverse impacts on the state's natural rMuttics, and that all feasible mitigation measures and 1
7 alternatives to avoid or reduce the impacts have been considered.
8 The EIR for the Newhall Ranch Project also does not adequately evaluate adveno
9 cnvirotunewal impacts on water resources. The Newhall Ranch Project EIR estimates that the +
10 project needs 15,345 ale Fact of water per year, (AR pp. 4765) The EIR concedes that the
11 wholesaler and retailer of water for the arra, Currie Lake Water Agency and Valencia water
12 Company, respectively, do not currently have all of the resources necessary for the service area
13 when the Specific Plan and other projects in the area are built. (AR pp. 4803.) The Attorney
14 Croneral, on behalfofthe people of the State of Catifomia, has an interest in how this need for
15 water will be fairly addressed, in addition, the Attomey General seeks a just resolution o F the
16 water issues for all parties that may provide an example for future allocations of precious, water
I7 resources that are subject to increased demand.
18 In sum, the Attorney General's partippatior. in the consolidated actions wi I l.focus on
l�) ensuring that the EIR rutty discloses the irnpattts ofthe Newhall Ranch Project on water
20 resources and biological resources, and that the Elft considers all feasible mitigation measures
21 and allernativcs to avoid or reduce such impacts.
27 V. CONCLUSION
23 To promote the prompt and fair resolution of rhe important issues raised in this action and
24 to protect the interests of the Peapic of the State of California, the Attorney General
25 /4
24
27 iii
2A /!r
7 I
P,& Ai M 5iJppf¢ 0! Klonun for I.cavc ;n APxaras Am,uis C un.w
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
H
14
15
16
17
t8
!h
20
21
22
23
24
73
24)
27
28
respectfully raguou that this Court grant its motion for IeaYe 1e appear asanticus curiu in
support of the petition= in se theconsotid" actions.
IDATED: (5 C44 q) (`r�7
Raspomfuily Submitted,
BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General
ofRl I Swkl
F fRa
Chief AasieteAt Attorney General
CRAIG THOMPSON,
Acting Amigmt Attorney General,
SR1AN BEMBACKU
SARAH MORRISON
Deputy Apomeya Gdferat
ay:
RIAN
Deputy Art*uwy Gonerat
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae,.
peapie of the State of Catifarnia
Ps AC. At !r� SUoro'l >f MYur ":t" to Appear as Ammvus Curiae
UPPER SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER CONEVIl'I' . E
22722 W. Soledad Canyon Road • P.O. Box 903 • Santa Clarita. CA 91380-9C JB • (805) 259-2737
November 4, 1998
Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor
Los Angeles County, 5th District
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jan Heidt, Mayor
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
bear Supervisor Antonovich and Mayor Heidt:
R.�.�EA
PA, - F, 0"n1D AT
1 a 3 9i MEETING
ITEM N0. 19
This letter is written on behalf of the members of the Upper Santa Clara Water
Committee. Collectively, we are responsible for ensuring that the citizens
of the Santa Clarita Valley have a safe, adequate, and reliable water supply.
To that end, we wanted to provide you with an update on the valley's existing
water supply and our plans to provide water supply updates in the future.
The Santa Clarita Valley is served by four retail water suppliers: Santa
Clarita Water Company, Valencia Water Company, Newhall County Water District
and Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36. The Castaic Lake Water Agency
(CLWA) is a wholesaler that provides water from California's State Water
Project to the retailers for distribution. These five entities meet regularly
as the Upper Santa Clara Water Committee to beneficially coordinate the use
of water in this area.
At the present time, sufficient water supplies exist to adequately and
reliably serve existing and planned near term developments tracked by
Los Angeles County's Development Monitoring Program (DMS). For long term
planning purposes, the average available water supply within the Santa
Clarita Valley is approximately 107,000 acre -ft per year. Water supplies
include groundwater from the Alluvial and Saugus Aquifers and imported water
from the State Water Project. The local Aquifers are in good operating
condition producing water quality that meets or exceeds standards set by the
California Department of Health Services and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
It's important to note that as development occurs in the valley, the local
water entities add water supply and facilities on an incremental basis and
in advance of the need. It is not reasonable for service providers to build
all that is necessary to accommodate projected water demands twenty to thirty
years in the future. For example, CLWA is currently constructing the first
phase of a recycled water project that ultimately is planned to deliver
approximately 10,000 acre -ft of highly treated wastewater for non -potable
uses. Once under way, this project will add to the areas total water
supply and serve to help "drought proof" existing supplies from future
droughts.
Los Angeles County Watenvorks District No. 36 9 Newhall County Water District 0 Santa Clarita Water Company • Valencia Water Company • Castaic Lake Water Agen:
Water Supply and Demand Tables from EIR
Table 4.9-1
Castaic Lake Water Agency 2020 Water Supply and Demand
Water Supply (acre-feet per year)' Water Demand (acre-feet per year)'
11,000 - 20,000 Demand Year 2020 175,000
54,200 Less Conservation (17,500)
' CLWA Integrated Water Resources Plan, February 1998.
Table 4.9.6
Scenario 2 Santa Clarita Valley Cumulative Buildout Scenario Water Demand and Supply'
Water Demand Acre-Feet/Year
Valley Buildout Water Demand Projection 157,500
Total 2020 CLWA Water Supply 115,700-124,700
Net Water Availability (supply minus demand) (-41,800-32,800)
Information compiled by Impact Sciences, Inc. (April 1998).
1 The CLWA buildout coater demand projection includes the use of reclaimed
water and water conservation measures. It includes active pending General
Plan Amendment requests, including the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. See
Appendix 4.9 for detailed cumulative water demand calculations.
I l a3 99 IVE[TiNG
ITEM NO. /9
9941.1
Robert Lathrop
25105 Highspring Ave
Newhall, 91321
November 29, 1999
Mayor Jo Anne Darcy
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd
Santa Clarita 91354
Subject: City Council meeting
11-23-99, Agenda item 19
North Valencia No.2
Discussion of City water
supply
Dear Mayor Darcy;
This is further to my testimony at the November 23 City Council
public hearing and responds to your suggestion that I list topics
needing discussion. They are noted below.
1) Defination of reliability
To discuss water availability one first needs to ascertain the
degree of reliability needed. One way is, for a given reliability,
to refer to figure 3-22 of the Department of Water Resources
Bulletin 160-98, copy of page attached. This shows;`for a given
reliability (percent of time at or above) how much of an entitlement
g
„may be expected to be delivered on average, each, year.
2) Availability
A reliability of delivery of 95% of the
an appropriate criterion for domestic water.
in figure 3-22, that, on average, there will
entitlement available except for one year in
than 40%, but it is not known how much less,
time, as MWD uses, is
This means, as shown
be 40% or more of.,,
every 20. Then less
will be available.
3) State Water Project reliability
While fig. 3.22 shows that with 95% reliability, at least'40%
of entitlement can normally be expected in any year, fig. 3.22 must
be used with caution since its reliability estimates do not include
the possible „serious effects of. earthquake in the Delta.
4) Earthquake Probability
The U.S. Geological Survey ha
probability of a severe earthquake
thus increasing the probability of
next three decades.
recently doubled its estimate of
in the Delta, like Oakland's,
earthquake to a 60% chance in the
5) Earthquake effect
A,Delta quake would be expected to -produce dile failures that
would draw salt water into the Delta. This would immediately shut
down the State Water Project in the Delta until the salt water could
be cleared. That could take a ,year or more and would meanwhile
seriously overburden Santa Clarita's groundwater.
6) New entitlements
CLWA has purchased about 41,000 of/y of new entitlements.
These rights are for water delivered to the north side of the
Tehachapis. To get this water to Castaic, CLWA needs to buy or
borrow some of MWD's rights to pumping and aquaduct space.
7) Preparation of USCVWC report
Mr. Worthington mentioned the Upper Santa Clara Valley Water
Committee's (USCVWC) Water Availability Report, along with the
statement that it was a reliable document prepared by elected
officials. In fact, the Committee has no official status and no
elected officials are members of it. Its so-called report was
neither sanctioned nor approved by any elected body.
8) Truthfulness of USCVWC report
It seems likely that Mr. Worthington would not have referred to
the USCVWC report as a reliable reference if he had known that the
Committee's report on water availability was false in that it
counted CLWA's basic entitlement as 100% firm water instead of being
only about 40% countable as firm as shown in figure 3.22. Further,
Mr. Worthington did not mention that of the 96.000 of/y of CLWA's
current total entitlement only 41,500af/y has pumping and aquaduct
rights to get it to Castaic or that its 95% firm portion of the
96,000 is even less, being about 38,000af/y. Unfortunately, the
misrepresentation of water availability by the USCWC is currently
being used by the County in its DMS to justify new housing
developments, among them North Valencia and Newhall Ranch. Mr.
Sagehorn's response to that fact is to say that no one told the
county (or, by inference, the City) that it could use the USCVWC
report for DMS purposes. Nevertheless, the county has used this
nonfactual report in its DMS estimates of water availability for new
housing. The City should not make the same error. While five
managers of local water agencies signed the report, none admits to
writing it. Like Topsy, they say, it just growed. The USCVWC
report is a poor reference for trying to show the credibility of the
North Valencia II EIR.
C
9) Citv's General Plan
The public has a legitimate interest in preventing excessive
exposure of Santa Clarita's groundwater supply for backup for the
State Water System if the latter should fail again as it did in
1991, because of drought or some other reason. Santa Clarita's
groundwater is limited. It is important that CLWA and the USCVWC
tell the County and the City the truth about imported water supplies
and CLWA's potential need to draw on City groundwater. It is also
important that the City abide by its General Plan in this matter.
10) Future reliabilty
In Mr. Worthington's defense of growth of future water
supplies, he cite's as fact that the State Water Project is going to
increase its supplies and reliability in the future. This is true
in a limited sense, but is very misleading. Said figure 3.22 shows
that in the future more flood flows will be captured and delivered
in wet years, but there will be no increase in amount or reliabilty
of yearly water supply in normal or dry years. Thus, reliability of
normal or minimum supplies, according to figure 3.22, will not
increase over the next twenty years.
11) Amount of water needed
Mr. Worthington chooses to ignore Santa Clarita's historical
actual value of one acre-foot of water used per conngction in favor
of a sophism that considers only water served to homes. The
butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker all use more than an
acre-foot a year, but Mr. Worthington does not count them. Removing
commercial and industrial uses from the averages does, of course,
reduce the use per connection. The 1 of/y per connection number
averages all uses per connection in all of Santa Clarita. Unless
there is to be a clear difference inJ he type of development
associated with the 1900 new homes compared with existing Newhall,
the 1 acre-foot per connection per year would be an excellent
indicator of total water usage from new development.
Please incorporate these comments in the public record and
please do not close the public hearing until it has been ascertained
that no one else wishes to address this matter before the Council.
Allowing one side more time than the other seems unfair.
�a
Robert Lathrop
3
r
FIGURE 3-22
1995 and 2020 State Water Project Delivery Capability
with Existing Facilities
Percent Time at. or Abo.'ve