HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - CUP AUTO MALL SC BUSINESS PARK (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approv
Item to be presented by: Vince Berto
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: July 8, 2002
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO MALL CONSISTING
OF FOUR DEALERSHIPS WITH ASSOCIATED AUTO SERVICES
AND FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF 554,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
DIRT FROM THE SANTA CLARITA BUSINESS PARK TO THE
PONY LEAGUE AND TOURNEY SOUTH PROJECT SITES. THE
PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN SUB AREA 8 — PONY LEAGUE OF
THE NORTH VALENCIA I SPECIFIC PLAN.
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt a resolution affirming the decision of the
Planning Commission to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master
Case 02-022, which consists of Conditional Use Permit 02-001, subject to the conditions of
approval and the mitigation measures.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2002, an application for a Conditional Use Permit for approval of
automotive sales and the transportation of 554,000 cubic yards of dirt from the Santa
Clarita Business Park to the Pony League and the Tourney South sites was submitted to
the City's Planning and Building Services Department by the Newhall Land and Farming
Company. On May 7, 2002, the Planning Commission heard the request and approved the
project with a 5-0 vote.
Friends of the Santa Clara River appealed the project on May 21, 2002. Their concerns
range from biological impacts to the possible contamination of the fill material from the
Santa Clarita Business Park.
Agenda Item:
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 2 of 8
The project site is currently undeveloped and is located within Sub Area 8- Pony League of
the North Valencia I Specific Plan (NVI). The Pony League site is approximately 53.1 acres
with 17.2 acres of recreational uses. The applicant is requesting approval of an auto mall
consisting of four dealerships with associated auto services on 13.3 acres with frontage
along Valencia Boulevard. Two dealerships will front Valencia Boulevard. Cinema Drive
will be extended to provide frontage to the two auto dealerships in the rear and provide
access to the Hart Pony League ball fields, which will remain largely unaffected. The
remaining 22.6 acres will remain as open space and roadways.
The project site requires extensive grading and therefore, the applicant is also proposing to
import dirt from the Santa Clarita Business Park. Approximately 460,000 cubic yards will
be transported from the Santa Clarita Business Park site to grade the Pony League site.
The remaining 94,000 cubic yards will be transported to the Tourney South site.
Development of the Tourney South site was previously approved and this portion of the
application is limited to the transportation of dirt. The construction of the individual auto
dealerships on the Pony League site will be subject to review and approval of a
Development Review application for consistency with the NVI Specific Plan.
The NVI Specific Plan is the subject of an EIR that was certified in December of 1997.
Mitigation measures from the North Valencia Annexation EIR are to be incorporated as
part of the project.
ANALYSIS
Response to grounds for appeal
In their May 21, 2002, appeal letter (attached), the Friends of the Santa Clara River listed
the basis for their appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Master Case 02-022.
Staff has reviewed the letter and prepared a response to the appellant's points. The
appellant's comments are provided in italics below with staff response in paragraph form
following the statement.
The City Council should review all public health and environmental impacts before this
project is finalized.
The subject site was approved for the development of 180,000 square feet of commercial
with the transportation of 324,000 cubic yards of dirt from the panhandle site (at the
terminus of Newhall Ranch Road, east of Bouquet Canyon Road) to the Pony League site
under the North Valencia I (NVI) Specific Plan. The City Council reviewed and certified
the North Valencia Annexation Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
approving the development on this site. Within the NVI Specific Plan, automotive sales
require the approval of a conditional use permit. Development of this site was analyzed
within the North Valencia I Specific Plan and is within the footprint of the approval
granted for 180,000 square feet of retail development. In addition, the applicant proposed a
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 3 of 8
modification to the amount of imported dirt and the borrow site location of the dirt. The
applicant increased the amount of imported dirt by greater than 100,000 cubic yards which
requires the approval of a conditional use permit. Therefore, the applicant submitted for an
application for a conditional use permit for automotive sales use and the transportation of
554,000 cubic yards of dirt from the Santa Clarita Business Park to the Pony League site.
Based on the initial study, the automotive use, the increase in the amount of import and
the change of borrow site location for the dirt were evaluated and any impacts are reduced
with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
The public should have the opportunity to bring their concerns before the Council at a
reasonable hour.
The item does not require City Council review unless the project is appealed. Opportunity
for public comment was provided in accordance with the law for the Planning Commission
hearing. The project notice was published in the Signal and all property owners within 500
feet of the Santa Clarita Business Park and the Pony League site and a public hearing was
held before the Planning Commission on May 7, 2002. Although the meeting started at
7:00, the Commission generally has a full agenda and therefore, at times the Commission
meetings run late. However, the item was not continued so as to provide the opportunity
for public comment to those members of the public who were in attendance for the item.
The Planning Commission made a decision after reviewing the staff report, environmental
documentation and the testimony presented by staff, the applicant and the public.
Due to the appeal submitted by the Friends of the Santa Clara River, the project will be
heard before the City Council. The project notice was published in the Signal and all
property owners within 500 feet of the subject and borrow sites were noticed for the July 8,
2002, City Council hearing. The meeting is a special meeting that will take place at 5:30
p.m., which is 30 minutes earlier than normal Council meetings.
Newly identified biological impacts should be disclosed and mitigated.
All biological impacts were addressed within the North Valencia Annexation
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which was certified by the City Council. The initial
study did not identify any new biological impacts other than the impacts previously
identified and mitigated in the EIR. Therefore, no additional biological studies or surveys
are necessary. All applicable mitigation measures in the North Valencia Annexation
Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program shall be
implemented as part of the project.
Violation of the Army Corp permit in the neighborhood of the Pony League fields should be
identified and addressed.
On February 18, 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers issued an emergency permit for the
Hart Pony League to work within the Santa Clara River. Although the permit expired in
July of 1998, the Hart Pony League continued to work within the River. The Hart Pony
League and the Army Corps of Engineers are working together to resolve the violation of
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 4 of 8
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A restoration plan from Hart Pony League will be
submitted and reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. After the plan is approved, the Hart Pony League will begin to restore the River.
The violation of the Army Corps permit is not part of this application. The violation
occurred off the project site and the violator was not Newhall Land and Farming Company.
Therefore, curing of the violation is not part of this application, nor can the City impose a a
remedy for this project.
Impacts to air pollution and increases to PM10 generation in a non -attainment zone should
be addressed. A negative declaration is not sufficient for these impacts.
The site was approved for the development of 180,000 square feet of commercial
development. The proposed project is 111,000 square feet of automotive sales uses. This is
a significant reduction in the amount of building square footage that will be constructed on
site. Air quality was previously reviewed under the EIR and the proposed auto dealerships
will not result in a significant increase in impacts to air quality. Generation of PM,o will
increase during construction with the earth movement and the use of heavy equipment.
However, the proposed project will result in a reduction of operational emissions by
approximately 50% from the previous approval.
A phase I environmental of the site and all import soil should be completed. This review
should include testing for ammonium perchlorate as well as other contaminants found. on
the WhitikerlBermite site. This review should be completed at the request of the City by an
independent laboratory. Failure to do so raises concerns that data in those reports may
show contamination.
A Phase I does not include soils testing. The Phase I does includes a site observation,
review of historical photos and a database search of any potential hazardous materials on
the site. A Phase I determines whether or not further review of the site is required.
A Phase I was prepared for the Pony League project site. Based on the findings,
conclusions and recommendation in that Phase I, the site is unlikely to have any
contamination. However, because of the possibility of buried tanks and underground pipes,
a subsurface investigation and soil sampling is recommended in the Phase I. This is added
as a condition of approval for this project. Should the sampling indicate any hydrocarbon
contamination, it will be disposed of in accordance with county and state regulations.
The borrow sites are located within the Santa Clarita Business Park and consists of two
borrow site alternatives. Alternative 1 is located between 800 — 1000 feet north of Porta
Bella and alternative 2 is located adjacent to the north property line of Porta Bella. BA
Environmental has reviewed the results from soils testing for 17 metals and perchlorate,
which was done in June 2002. BA Environmental determined that the site does not contain
any metals that exceed the thresholds in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR). In addition, no detectable concentrations of perchlorate were found in the soil
samples. Therefore, based on the CCR, the soil is not considered hazardous for transport
and disposal.
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 5 of 8
Newhall Land or any other developer should disclose any previously completed soil studies
on this project and all imported soil. Failure to do so raises concerns that data in those
reports may show contamination.
The Phase I for the Pony League project site did not indicate a need for soils testing
because no uses resulting in contamination have occurred on this site. However, due the
possibility of underground piping that may have leaked, the Phase I recommends sampling
of the soil for hydrocarbons. As a condition of approval, the applicant will test the soil and
if any hydrocarbons are detected, they shall be disposed of in accordance with governmental
regulation.
BA Environmental evaluated the June 2002 soils analysis for the soil sampled from the two
borrow sites within the Santa Clarita Business Park. BA Environmental reviewed the
findings and determined that the soil was tested for 17 metals listed in the California Code
of Regulations Title 22. No metals exceeded the Total Thresholds Limit Concentrations.
According to these results, the soil is not considered to be hazardous under Title 22 for
transportation and disposal purposes. In addition, the samples were reported to have no
detectable concentrations of perchlorate.
Impacts of well closures on water supply should be evaluated.
The closure of the water wells is a separate project. Four water wells exist on the project
site. These wells are close to 60 years old and were converted from agricultural to
residential wells. These wells have reached the end of their useful life and as a result, the
Valencia Water Company will drill two new wells on the Hart Pony League site. The
Valencia Water Company has secured necessary permits to construct the new water wells.
The Valencia Water Company is working with the County of Los Angeles to abandon the
existing wells on the project site. The water wells will be abandoned and the new wells
drilled in accordance with Los Angeles County Health Department requirements. The new
wells will be of similar capacity to the existing wells.
Loss of recharge areas to the Santa Clara River should be evaluated.
Loss of recharge was evaluated within the North Valencia I Specific Plan EIR. The
proposed project will be developed within the same development footprint as originally
proposed in the Specific Plan and will therefore, not increase any impacts to the Santa
Clara River.
Impacts to contaminant plume characteristics study by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
should be evaluated. Priscilla Perry of USACOE should be notified and Corps comments
solicited.
Staff contacted Priscilla Perry of the Army Corps of Engineers regarding this matter. She
is investigating the Eastern Santa Clara Basin for perchlorate in high concentration in the
aquifers. She referred staff to the Regulatory Branch for review of the initial study
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 6 of 8
regarding this project. Although it is not required by law, staff has sent a copy of the initial
study to Priscilla Perry and the Regulatory Branch of the Army Corps of Engineers for their
review.
Comments by DTSC should be solicited. Comments by DHS should be solicited
Although not required by law, staff has sent a copy of the initial study to the Department of
Toxic Substance Control and the Department of Health Services.
Cumulative impacts to the Santa Clara River should be evaluated.
All environmental impacts to the Santa Clara River were evaluated within the North
Valencia I Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project will be developed within the same
development footprint as originally approved. The project, including the bank stabilization,
will not result in any additional impacts to the Santa Clara River.
Any impacts to endangered species including loss of groundwater recharge should be
evaluated.
Impacts to endangered species and the loss of groundwater recharge were evaluated within
the North Valencia I Specific Plan. The project will be developed within the same
development footprint as originally approved. Surveys were conducted following the
methodology recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services in the Spring and early
Summer of 2001. These surveys recorded one adult toad approximately one mile from the
site at the San Francisquito Creek confluence; no toads were found on or near the Pony
League site. A summary of this survey was incorporated as an attachment to the initial
study. In addition, the site does not have suitable habitat due to the steepness of the banks
and the amount of human activity. There are non-native species, such as the African
clawed frog, cats, dogs and rats, which affect the arroyo toads ability to survive.
554,000 cubic yards of dirt will be transported from the Santa Clarita Business Park site
(Centerpoint). Center Point is located next to the Bermite & Hi Shear property. The
environmental documentation presented to the Planning Commission was a mitigated
negative declaration for the SC Business Park done in 1983. The City Council approval of
development for L. Rasmussen the S. C. Business Park (Center Point) in 1998. The City
proposed a Negative Declaration. The borrowed dirt should be tested by the Dept. of Toxic
Substances Control.
The borrow site has two alternatives for the location of the dirt which will be imported to
the Pony League and Tourney South sites. Alternative 1 is located within 800 — 1000 feet
east of the Porta Bella and alternative 2 is adjacent to Porta Bella. Both borrow sites
alternatives have been sampled and BA Environmental has reviewed the results. BA
Environmental determined that all the metals tested are within the threshold limit
concentration under Title 22 of the California. Furthermore, no detectable traces of
perchlorate were found in the soil.
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 7 of 8
A negative declaration is not a sufficient document due to the extension potential impact of
this proposal.
The initial study determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, no
significant impact would result from the proposed project. Therefore, based on this initial
study, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared and is the appropriate environmental
document. Furthermore, all the applicable mitigation measures in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program of the North Valencia Annexation Environmental
Impact Report will be implemented as part of this project.
Impacts to downstream communities should be addressed.
All environmental impacts to the Santa Clara River were evaluated within the North
Valencia I Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project will be developed within the same
development footprint as originally approved. The project, including the bank stabilization,
will not result in any additional impacts to the Santa Clara River or its downstream
communities.
Project Benefits
The auto mall will provide a strong commercial base for the area, contributing to a balanced
economy for the City. The Hart Pony League site will be offered for public ownership in
accordance with the North Valencia Development Agreement. Bank stabilization will be
constructed in accordance with the Natural Management River Plan, which will protect the
ballfields from flooding. In addition, an improved access driveway, the extension of Cinema
Drive, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to the fields will be provided.
As part of the approval of this project, the trail system will be fully improved around the
project site along with improvements to the existing bike trail along Valencia Blvd. The
existing Class I trail along Valencia Boulevard will be improved to provide a four -foot
walkway and an 11 -foot bike trail. The trails along the side of the overall site will consist of
a four -foot walkway and a 16 -foot bike trail. A multi -use trail will be constructed along the
rear portion of the subject site, adjacent to the ball fields. The multi -use trail will have a
10 -foot equestrian trail that has access to and from the Santa Clara River and the South
Fork, along with a 12 -foot paseo separated by a four -foot slope. The trails will be designed
and constructed to the satisfaction of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Director. The medians along Valencia Boulevard will be improved and landscaping will be
installed to meet the requirements within the City Beautification Master Plan.
Environmental Review
After receiving the appeal letter, the initial study was revised and recirculated for public
review. The initial study was revised to include specific concerns outlined in the appeal
letter. This revised initial study was noticed in the Signal and circulated for 21 days
between June 17, July 8, 2002. The revised initial study is the environmental
documentation that was sent to the Department of Health Services, Department of Toxic
Master Case 02-022
July 8, 2002
Page 8 of 8
Substances Control, the Regulatory of the Army Corps of Engineers and Priscilla Perry of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. City Council approve the project with modifications.
2. Council deny Master Case 02-022; Conditional Use Permit 02-001.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately 300,000 square feet of auto dealerships exist in the Valencia Auto Center. In
2001, auto dealerships accounted for $4,457,531 in sales tax for the City. Given these
figures, each square foot of dealerships in the Center generates approximately $15 in sales
tax per year for the City.
As proposed, this project will add an additional 111,000 square feet of automotive retail to
the Valencia Auto Center. Assuming $15 of sales tax per year is generated per square foot
of auto dealerships, upon buildout, it is estimated this project will generate an
approximately $1,165,000 in sales tax revenue per year for the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Site Plan
Vicinity Map
Haul Route Exhibit Alternative 1
Haul Route Exhibit Alternative 2
Resolution 02 -
Conditions of Approval
Appeal Letter received May 21, 2002
Memo from ACOE received May 29, 2002
Letter from the Valencia Water Company dated June 18, 2002
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Master Case 02-022
READING FILE
Minutes from the May 7, 2002 Planning Commission hearing
Staff Report to Planning Commission hearing May 7, 2002
Planning Commission Resolution P02-17
North Valencia Specific Plan
North Valencia Annexation Environmental Impact Report
JJL:VPD:WD:lep
s:\pbs\cu nW2002/02-0221agndrpt
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City
Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1" Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 8th
day of July, 2002, at or after 5:30 p.m. to consider Master Case No. 02-022 / Conditional Use
Permit 02-001. The applicant, Newhall Land and Farming requested approval for four auto
dealerships with associated auto services. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for
the transportation of 554,000 cubic yards of dirt from the Santa Clarita Business Park to two
sites (Pony League and Tourney South. The project site is located in Sub Area 8 - Pony League
of the North Valencia I Specific Plan. The Project location is at Valencia Boulevard at the
terminus of Cinema Drive. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
proposed project and is available for public review at the Planning and Building Services
Department, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on June 14, 2002.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter
at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City of Santa Clarita,
Department of Planning and Building Services, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa
Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 255-4330, Wendy Deats, Project Planner..
If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Dated: June 5, 2002
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: June 17, 2002
\ comes \phponyleaguempd
i
I
3~3 N
cRi m
Z
0
a
z
� Q
" Jl1 W =
Wcc �� Q a
Lu
o RD D hJ �je L Z
43
G.
g W
y� U Ial
Ldp
(L (n u J J
Z 0
a9 N
I
NOl a o
_"•�•7 3A21 c�y
3 n
� O W m
W OO1 U `j <Z'
ROD 0
w Uaco zcU)�
W r, $ m <W
ami NZ2 ZM
�W
�i F N N ICI_-� 5wS
O Jo OJI ?I ifil3mir
i
i
}
Z
O
CL
Z ,-
2 �>
CL aH
w =Q
o Q �
LU
z Z F-
J
a 55 Q
o a?0-
w�
1 Qm
25 1 o
O o
a
}ur g
rws
w Ui q�q
Hwy
8 ��4
rZ
N
�ZO
J
mU�
! 2/. 7ed",&
S i 4 F,� tip" S � T� �C3-✓�� .^!A 1. �.el.iCC \ ` r �j'�� w 1S � S
C ,,p acA all li4 �t h uo i v ; kA� �,Cc� ecl C2-<Z"—
C..)
J O L C C -. (X -t. � y J n V
�C C.tra-�,Ov,, at1� e.L i U.i-�.�!_ tQ•�inV.v'C':+-:=ty,fclX
Q N �.��
. ¢ Weir @.v\ @.✓r-2lit'� ti1O� VlaV+-s•¢(� �'�.✓� 4'1
as Gri
CaJ, C sCa1vl�. �o�v,eLi CL PV�(,�
j� lit. U Y l' .j v; VVl �2 v 1 -"LA y 1^-�. Q 4' C �.S L jCC
QC
SI� a a aper- F42 i�
Gt, V' Q.Gz S cr V�
i V '�-K'1 `-� 1 ��� e �n..'CLi / � G/� � C�t(C� eVY � d'/✓i I� ' �
�cpl'Jtici 7�n.i 7,• c,�,(%.�
LC
1C3
�(l�` Z S �vl �� c.G c�U"�SgQc� r �� LSC Gji�rLC
&,,--
'tel l /� inn
I' 4i� � :.+gam `vim , t v { ^S v • R �v G
J
Ge 412 jiyl /O"t-t
r �
• L Gis i�`.Qll C\�S-
•
d:$ -T
1Na,wae—L� t
Ci I oSS ep� ��a a.T ea5 -C� 4. Ec+ Oar
All 1 � r 0
Vr Jr'cvVLyf�Y• s 0� LJh�,.�%'�QY.�.�m`i�
• ¢,^• K�) ,0 cti..�"�-�. z^ ; S 1. l a.. .�; J' 4 �q J"U s A- r c
c� j�bq.1 �.a���-�r'�c^ pC,.,
rj ��ds rL cow, I is So(�G, f�
�. �- ,V,^* -I �-n �J \J �I } J l.. - �U �di- e L S e 4 C t A-4 v
fi lL 7 S 1t i ?
.-c- t D a C4S
5-0-f.') < 9 Lo LLQ {-fin
\AC,v V, Cass o
a.r(3:5
A'p \d Mh o 6. v `a- , SAN PO /
r
1
_ �� `� (�= : ,. ✓-i�' y�N � J �V'--^ 6 �. �.:-�+ � �'^-�`f� IM e ✓�� '� =<' � . �Ct C
4rt.L3 J •L�
1
pRry o�a�,
1 aU c r o o `7 Y
i�x r
tC
Cpev a C �r�/
0,V1 :aQ1
rcJ¢ck aw)
Ov
pyL r Vn
Pov -Y¢�l �`,1,
rcu. Ovrc-`�C
�(11
V a.n, SOS C g>tiC.fi.Y
V. $ ��e-�C
f "r f L, \��_
1Na,wae—L� t
Ci I oSS ep� ��a a.T ea5 -C� 4. Ec+ Oar
All 1 � r 0
Vr Jr'cvVLyf�Y• s 0� LJh�,.�%'�QY.�.�m`i�
• ¢,^• K�) ,0 cti..�"�-�. z^ ; S 1. l a.. .�; J' 4 �q J"U s A- r c
c� j�bq.1 �.a���-�r'�c^ pC,.,
rj ��ds rL cow, I is So(�G, f�
�. �- ,V,^* -I �-n �J \J �I } J l.. - �U �di- e L S e 4 C t A-4 v
fi lL 7 S 1t i ?
.-c- t D a C4S
5-0-f.') < 9 Lo LLQ {-fin
\AC,v V, Cass o
a.r(3:5
A'p \d Mh o 6. v `a- , SAN PO /
r
1
_ �� `� (�= : ,. ✓-i�' y�N � J �V'--^ 6 �. �.:-�+ � �'^-�`f� IM e ✓�� '� =<' � . �Ct C
4rt.L3 J •L�
vZ
may I ; 2-ev,7-
X% L
XL-e-� eV—c- r - v-�
vv-� C> rn r/-Iu V%4
We, the undersigned, request that the Santa Clarita City Council call up the approval of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission approval, project number
02-022 conditional use permit 02-003. We believe the Negative Declaration was not a
sufficient document to evaluate impacts to air quality, traffic, ground water recharge and
impacts to endangered species. Further, the closing of water wells on this property
should be carefully evaluated. This area was designated a Significant Ecological Area by
the County of Los Angeles. If it were still in the county an EIR would be required for
this project. The city should treat the flood plain and the Santa Clara River with equal
respect. A �'jn l�.cs i. T E h vJ c" � e .�'�/� Z. 6c,
Cbc-eC.•J c,t�yC-�':or t-iJ al.a�c�u r: W•v
Name Signature Address
9 - �1�/
_SC4,jv-t-Z
2�*�Z7rq.ivF,�.D/1. S�v —Z)
2.
^....
.
d' 4
3.
"'.3 iCrrt7�y
12.i`
Yin
/vyyjS
�cm' '�y939��✓ Cpm- R1� j 32j
4.
:t: tr'„9
%.,ails c7c
m2 S r�• ��1us-
?5; 3 /-Ghi�sl'j?{ ;ii i✓:✓r %1./ 13 i,
S.
14. J6 -Key ,vote. -rte L ey?
Sk< n :i--/ V Atci A W{ 3 SS”
15. �•..^.rte.,. ��d�.:..•..�-✓'�. .� /
3,4e P� a' >•c `t't3ss
6.g
6
18. D
',qh�--1%ccfccg
7.
— 152. A,. - *( 41W9LL CA C7/ -?2-
20.
j2L{Lc
GrlLt ���7 ll�D �r
�� 285x.3 SO&,4,' PI"V 6�r(, L16V
2\
LL/AA/ /p -21
Lc'4oiy/�30 ,
,;42.'l,44'%JXd-
,.
._..
k2
9 - �1�/
zs 7 C
10. deFt 5 a CS
2s c �d e�rc 'dol
/ ��r-
.
12.i`
(1 it�
13. f'
m2 S r�• ��1us-
14. J6 -Key ,vote. -rte L ey?
Sk< n :i--/ V Atci A W{ 3 SS”
15. �•..^.rte.,. ��d�.:..•..�-✓'�. .� /
16.�- tiBi.= .^
�+s �,r,l
% r.)o/ i%�frk i.'/U •a� !-+A.1���`!7e11%/3Z
17.
18. D
',qh�--1%ccfccg
L (h - o!%% / k SGt_Cl��,tEca gi3s-e?
19 1fk /<4NIVEp
— 152. A,. - *( 41W9LL CA C7/ -?2-
20.
j2L{Lc
GrlLt ���7 ll�D �r
�� 285x.3 SO&,4,' PI"V 6�r(, L16V
2\
LL/AA/ /p -21
Lc'4oiy/�30 ,
,;42.'l,44'%JXd-
05/29/02 WED 10:25 FAX 8055852154 ACOE Ventura Regulatory aoo,
CESPL-CO-R
May 29, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: S. HART BASEBALL LEAGUE - UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES (2002 -00782 -AOA)
1. On February 18, 1998, the Corps of Engineers issued an emergency authorization for bank
stabilization activities in the Santa Clara River to protect the existing baseball fields to the S. Hart
Baseball League (98 -00320 -AOA). The above emergency authorization expired in July of 1998;
however, the permittee continued to maintain and even expand the above bank stabilization structures for
the next three years without authorization from the Corps of Engineers. In the spring of 2001, the above
unauthorized activities were reported to the Corps of Engineers by the Friends of the Santa Clara River.
The Corps conducted an investigation, visiting the site, contacting the City of Santa Clarita, Newhall
Land and Farm and attempting to contact several members of the baseball league to determine the'
responsible party for the above activities. In February 2002, an agent for the baseball league contacted
the Corps about constructing permanent soil cement bank stabilization to protect the baseball fields. At
that time, the Corps of Engineers informed the agent that an application for permanent bank stabilization
for the baseball fields could not be evaluated until the unauthorized activities in the project area were
resolved. The Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit with representatives from the baseball league on
February 21, 2002 and, to resolve the above violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the
representatives from the baseball league agreed to remove the unauthorized fill material and restore the
natural river topography. A follow up letter dated March 13, 2002 indicated that the baseball league
would be preparing a restoration plan for the Corps approval, which they hoped to complete by mid-April
2002.
2. As of May 29, 2002, the Corps has not received a restoration plan from the baseball league, but recent
calls from their agent indicate that it should be completed shortly. Once the Corps receives the
restoration plan, it will be forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance with the
Endangered Species Act. Once the restoration plan has been approved by both the Corps and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the baseball league would be required to immediately implement the
restoration plan and remove the unauthorized fill material, restoring the project area to pre -project
contours.
Aaron O. Allen, Ph.D.
Senior Project Manager
DISTRIBUTION:
Ms. Wendy Deats (City of Santa Clarita)
Valencia Water COmpan
24e31 Avenus Pcakckollor . P,O, BOX 5904. Velen6a. CA 91.385 socia'
N011 294-0828 • Fax (661) 294-3806
hme 18, 2002
City o£Santa Clurita
Wendy Deats, Assistant Planner
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Ms. Deats:
The Valencia Water Company is planning to replace 4 water wells located near the Hart
Pony baseball fields. These wells produce water that complies with strict water quality
standards set by the California Department of Health Services and the Environmental
Protection Agency. They have been in operation for over 60 years and have reached the
end of their useful lives. Our plan is to replace these wells with two new wells in the
same general area. The new wells will maintain our current water delivery capacity as
the four existing wells. We currently have al I necessary permits to begin work on
constructing the new wells.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at 295-
6501.
%ice''
��:��
Robert J. Diprimio
President
NCff ABnAviuenv o wt Nk' .• 1,ANDAN0/4FMINO COMPANY
ZO'd £O:ZT ZOOZ ZT unL 9082V6ZT99:XeJ JANHdWOJ ?EiUq NION3-1UA
(1)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 8, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Information regarding Pony League Appeal
Attached is material received in the City Clerk's Office this afternoon in connection with the
appeal of the Pony League site scheduled for public hearing at tonight's special City Council
meeting.
Should you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
cc: Sharon Dawson, City Clerk
Wendy Deats, Assistant Planner
JUL. d.CbbZ 1ob7PN VALENCIA CO
NEWHALL" LAND
July 3, 2002
NO. 409 P.2
Ms. Lynne Piambeek Via Facsimile (6611255-6899
SCOPE
P,O. Box 1182
Canyon Country, CA 91386-1182
RE: Response to Questions — Pony League Commercial Development
Dear Ms. Plambeck:
This letter serves as the written response to those items raised by you on behalf of the
Friends of the Santa Clara River over the last month. The items discussed and written
responses are listed below:
;Z
e d installation of the two replaceme= wells? Newhall Land will be
responsible for all costs associated with the closure of the four water wells located
within the proposed commercial development. Valencia Water Company will be
responsible for those costs associated with the installation of the two replacement
wells. As indicated at out meeting, the four wells are approximately 60 years old
and are nearing the end of their useful life. The wells were also being removed in
conjunction with the retail cormercial center approved for the site as a part of the
North Valencia 1 Annexation Project (of which an EIR was prepared, certified,
and not legally challenged).
wells located on the Pony Lea= site? I contacted Valencia Water Company and
was informed that a recent test (April 2002) had been conducted on the five wells
(four of which are located on the commercial development area and one on the
Hart Pony complex). I forwarded the results of this test to you on June 14. As
indicated by the test, perchlorate was not detected in any of the five wells.
Perchlorate has never been detected in these subject wells.
Will the commercial =Ject have a negative effect upon water Quality?- No, as
indicated at the meeting, future development on each of the four lots will require
the submittal of a site plan to the City of Santa Clarita. The City will, as part of
this formal site plan review process, require the developer to implement City
adopted storm water pollution prevention improvements in conjunction with
development of the site. Newhall Land in grading the site will also have to
comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal storm water requirements.
THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANVr 23623 VALENCIA BONLIVAIID, VALENCIA. CA 91355-2194
TEL 661.255.4000 FAR 661.255.3960 wissms www.nawhall.cam
JUL. 3.eWWZ 1:57PM VALENCIA CO
NO. 409 P.3
Mitigation measures; such as the preparation and implementation of a storm water
management plan are required. Temporary and permanent erosion control
measures will be implemented on the project. These could include silt fencing,
berms, drainage swales and sediment traps. Finally, Newhall Land has agreed to
"connect" the Hart Pony facility to sewerage system, eliminating their use of the
existing septic system. The implementation of the above mitigation measures will
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Will the development reresult in substantial lose of rechar¢e area? The North
Valencia 1 Environmental Impact Report, of which this project site was a part of,
concluded that development of the project would not result in a substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability because the amount of proposed hardscape
necessary to construct the project is negligible in the relation to the entire alluvial
area. Additionally, development of_this commercial project will result in the
dedication of the approximately 17 -acre Hart Pony baseball complex to the Pony
League for continued use of this facility. The site contains 10 baseball fields as
well as other permeable areas, which certainly benefits groundwater recharge.
Has soil tel'ng of the Rasmussen "borrow sites" been completed and has
perchlorate been found? Yes, soil testing has been completed on the "borrow
sites" and perchlorate was not detected. A summary (attached) prepared by BA
Environmental confirming the above was submitted to the City of Santa Clarita on
June 14.
In
anticipation of construction for bank stabilization Improvements, lvewnml , anu
hired Ecological Services, Inc. to conduct focused protocol surveys for arroyo
toad in and adjacent to the Pony League site. Arroyo Toads were not detected
during any of the six field surveys. A copy of the report is attached for your
review.
I also wanted to point out that Newhall Land has agreed to construct a sewer lift
station and connect the Pony League baseball complex to the public sewer system for
the commercial project. You inaccurately stated at the Council meeting of June 26,
2002 that the City would end up paying for this significant improvement for the Pony
League.
I hope the information contained in this letter addresses your concerns with this
project. In summary, substantial environmental benefits will occur as a result of these
two projects, not the least of which is removal of rubble and other debris, construction
of bank stabilization to protect from erosion and downstream sedimentation,
elimination of the use of a large septic system immediately adjacent to the river,
improved public safety by construction of a signalized access for the baseball fields,
JUL. 3.2002 1:57PM VALENCIA CO NO.409 P.4
construction of an additional segment of the Santa Clara River pedestrian/bike trail,
dedication and preservation of 17 acres of recreational facilities heavily used by the
entire Santa Clarita Valley.
If you have any questions related to this letter or the project, please feel free to
contact me at (661) 255-4003.
Sincerely,
Glenn Adamick
Vice President, Planning and Entitlements
Valencia Division
cc; Mayor Ferry and Members of the City Council
Mr. Ken Pulskamp, City of Santa Clarity
Mr. Jeffrey Lambert, City of Santa Clarita
Mr. Vince Bertoni, City of Santa Clarita
Ms. Wendy Dents, City of Santa Clarity
Mr. Tom Dierokman, Newhall Land
Mr. Fred MacMurdo, Newhall Land
Mr. Dave Scripture, hart Pony
From: Ron Bodorf Fax: +1(805)4984323 To: Wendy Deeds Fax: (661)2698126 Page 2 of 2 Wednesday, July 03, 20025:39 PM
July 3, 2002
Wendy Deats
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Building and Planning Services
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 93155
Re: Master Case 02-022, Auto Mall at Pony League Site
Dear Ms. Deats,
This project should be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review after the
Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and public comments thereon. Publishing an
Initial Study AFTER the Planning Commission decision on the project has been made
deprives the Commission of information relevant to the decision.
Friends of the Santa Clara River offers the following comments on the Initial Study.
1. This project should not be approved until issues regarding the arroyo toad are understood
and resolved. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should soon issue its Biological Opinion
as required for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. If the toad is
affected, project alternatives will have to be considered.
2. A Negative Declaration cannot be used under CEQA if endangered species are affected.
Only after the Biological Opinion is issued will this be known. The choice of appropriate
CEQA documentation should thus await the Biological Opinion.
3. The Initial Study made no reference to the fact that the Pony League management is
under direction by the Army Corps of engineers to remove the illegal bank protection it
formerly installed and restore a natural bank.
4. In considering the arroyo toad, the Initial Study makes the astonishing statement (p.24)
that "Much of the streambank area has been stabilized with concrete rubble and rock rip -rap
that would significantly impede upland migration." This is exactly the illegal bank
protection which the Army Corps of Engineers has instructed them to remove. The
arroyo toad could well be affected by the placement of this illegal material. Using the
presence of the material to down grade the area as toad habitat is completely illogical.
Sincerely,
Ron Bottorff, Chair
Friends of the Santa Clara River
660 Randy Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
Jul 03 02 01:40p
VAN ROYCE VIBBER
9990 Houston Road
Malibu, CA 90265
310/589-0803 phone
310/589-0214 fax
310/717-1122 cell
July 2, 2002
ATTENTION: Wendy Deets
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Fax (661) 259-8125
Page 1 of 1
RE: Protect the Santa Clarita River
Dear City Council:
I am opposed to the Mercedes-Benz auto dealership being placed in the proposed location.
The River should be designated as critical habitat for the federally endangered three spine
stickleback, as proposed in the city's own lawsuit.
The hearing should be delayed until additional hearings are held, and time has been given to
respond to the initial study showing the intense environmental damage which would occur if -he
dealership were built. Furthermore, the project should not be built until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department and the Army Corps of Engineers has certified that there will be no Impacts to the Arroyo
Toad. All steps need to be taken to protect this important River habitat for the rare bird and plant life
which occurs in the area of the River and is dependent upon the River. Protecting the environment
must take precedence over the dealership, which can and should be located elsewhere.
Note that I am not opposed to the Pony League baseball program, as that does no ha -m to the
River, contrary to Newhall Land and Farming publicity to the contrary.
Newhall Land and Farming has been quite deceptive and dishonest in minimizing the severe
environmental damage which would take place in and to the River. It is the job of the city, our
government, to be absolutely certain that the reports provided by the developer are accurate and
correct. Indeed it is the responsibility of the city to protect the River from development.
Please let me know how the city Intends to vote on this matter, and what steps the city is
taking to preserve the environment.
Waiting to hear from you,
C� �
VAN ROYCE VIBBER
p.1
3435 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 320
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1904
7-8-02
City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355
SIERRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
Angeles Chapter
Re: Auto Dealership in the Santa Clara River, Master Case # 02-022
Dear Council Members:
(213) 387-4287 phone
(213) 387-5383 fax
www.angeles.sierraclub.org
n
n
~
ti
{�
w
�
L
Q
rnor
��
N
m
t
D
7AC
00
2
cn<
D
no
C-)c
r
C">
�
N
D
�
c
We concur with the other presenting environmental organizations that issues related to endangered
species and cumulative impacts to down stream users including increased velocity and erosion of
flood flows caused by banking and narrowing of the river have not been addressed A subsequent
EIR would be the most appropriate document to address these substantial impacts.
We recommend that the Council return this project to the planning commission for additional
review. The project should not be approved until a Verification Letter reviewing and approving
compliance with Newhall Land and Farming's 404 permit is received by the City as it may cause
changes to the project. Further, the City should await the biological opinion on the Arroyo Toad
to ensure consistency with their opposition position on the gravel mine project in regards to the
Arroyo Toad.
We believe that, after proper review, some adjustments could be made to the project that would
satisfy all parties. However, legally required review must be a prerequisite to any project approval.
Sincerely,
H
H Schultz, hair
Santa Clarita Group
too
Center for Biological Diversity
�9 Prvix ing and restoring natured easysicm,s and im v4d spa.es
•���Utf•`t dimugh sc;ouv, fr>kij, and mn4�meatal.bm.
ems
07/08/02
Cl) -
n
Sic
=74
-tom
c
c
n
City of Santa Clarita
porn
m
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
orn
D
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355
_�
_
A
N
O
R
Attn.: Wendy Deats, City of Santa Clarita, Department of Planning and Building
Services
cc: Santa Clarita City Council
Re: Master Case 02-022
Dear Ms. Deals,
Please find our comments listed below in relation to the City of Santa Clarita's
Initial Study dated 06/14/02, Mercedes Benz Dealership with the North Valencia
Annexation located within the boundaries of the Natural River Management Plan
adjacent to the Santa Clara River and its tributaries.
Comments in this letter are related to biology and reflect our comments and
concerns related to the City of Santa Clarita's Initial Study dated 06/14/02, and
evaluation of impacts to the biological resources of the project area, and
comments responding to Dave Crawford, of Compliance Biology Survey results in
2002.
Silver Cit^ • Tucaon • P':oenix • San Diego • Beraeley • Portland
,Iain efSce • PD Box 110 • Tucaon, AZ • 55702
T. 52C.623.5�-2 • F: M.6 39797
Issue 1 ARROYO TOAD
a) It is impossible to identify which EIR process Newhall Land and Farming is
utilizing for this proposed project. It appears the projects are commingled, making
impossible to recognize which type of bank stabilization will occur in the project
area. In the North Valencia Annexation EIR it appears that property adjacent to
the Santa Clara River at the Hart Pony League Field was to be retained as an
upland habitat area. Yet the Natural River Management Plan appears to change
the project area and not allow for an upland habitat zone as defined in the original
approved North Valencia Annexation project area. The proposed bank
stabilization in the North Valencia Annexation and the Natural River Management
Plan appear to be different. We have tried unsuccessfully to address this with
Wendy Deats of the Planning Department, but unfortunately she has not returned
our telephone calls requesting clarification of the proposed bank stabilization..
Indeed, it is evident that this document was not circulated to the California
Department of Fish and Game and or the United States Fish and Wildlife. We
believe that biological information in the North Valencia Annexation was withheld
from state and federal agencies during the review process for the Natural River
Management Plan of which this project is a part of. The Arroyo Toad was not
addressed in the Natural River Management Plan.
Consequently the North Valencia Annexation relies solely on bank protection
provided for in the Natural River Management Plan for all streambed alterations
for said project. The Arroyo Toad was not addressed in the Natural River
Management Plan, and no consultation occurred with US Fish and Wildlife to
review impacts to the Arroyo Toad.
In short this project can not begin until consultation with US Fish and Wildlife has
been completed.
In addition, according to the Army Corp of Engineers documents, the Hart Pony
League Fields has illegally altered the banks of the river to the point that it no
longer resembles that historical natural topography of the river making it
completely impossible to comprehend this planned soil/cement bank stabilization
and its impacts to native fish and amphibians.
Copy of letter attached
b) The Initial Study prepared by the City of Santa Clarita dated 06/01/02 states
that Newhall's North Valencia Annexation and Natural River Management Plan
area already addressed impacts to endangered species specifically the Arroyo
Toad.
2
Newhall Land and Farming failed to report the findings of Arroyo Toads that were
observed by their own biologists in 19W below McBean Parkway about a 1/2 mile
downstream from this project site (see North Valencia Annexation Draft EIR
1997); again in 2000 Arroyo Toad tadpoles were observed below the old bridge
by Newhall's biologist, Lou Cortois of Aquatic Consulting, Inc. and then again not
reported to the agencies until a year later (after critical habitat was designated) .
The North Valencia Annexation project area stated that if the Arroyo Toad was
observed in the project area consultation with US Fish and Wildlife would be
required, and yet neither of the Newhall biologist's findings were reported to US
Fish and Wildlife Service, despite the fact that both observations were within the
Natural River Management Plan area. The City and Newhall Land both failed to
advise the state and federal agencies of these findings and therefore intentionally
misled the Federal Government by stating in your opposition to critical habitat that
Arroyo Toads had never been documented along the Santa Clara River and its
tributaries— when indeed Newhall Land was aware that toads had been observed
in three different locations within the Natural River Management boundaries prior
to writing their letter of opposition. and the City also was aware of at least 2
findings of arroyo toads prior to writing their letter of opposition of critical habitat,
because both the 1994 and 1996 findings were both outlined in EIR's that the City
of Santa Clarita approved-- the North Valencia Annexation and the North
Valencia II EIR.
c) Newhall Land and Farming and the City of Santa Clarita approved mitigation
for the Arroyo Toad in the North Valencia Annexation Draft EIR and final EIR
without consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service. They approved massive
projects, new bridges, widening of existing bridges, bank stabilization, and loss of
uplands without any conservation plan or meaningful mitigation to protect the
Arroyo toad from these impacts.
d) As I noted earlier, in 2000 Newhall Land and Farming and the City of Santa
Clarita wrote letters to the US Fish and Wildlife Service opposing critical habitat
for the Arroyo Toad, and stating that the Arroyo Toad had never been
documented along the Santa Clara River and its tributaries. Yet, the City is now
trying to approve a negative declaration as it relates to the presence of the toad
stating that Newhall Land and City of Santa Clarita addressed impacts to the
arroyo toad in the North Valencia Annexation project area plan in 1997.
e). A map created by Impact Sciences, Inc., 2001, under contract to Newhall
Land, concluded that the entire area from Bouquet Canyon Road to 1-5 is of
moderate to high potential habitat for the arroyo toad. The arroyo toad is highly
mobile during the breeding season, and is known to move in and out of the
breeding area anywhere from 1.25 miles to 2 miles.
- A copy of this map is attached
3
f.) No evidence of Arroyo Toads breediag within the Natural River Management
Plan. Reply:
As stated above Arroyo Toad tadpoles were observed in the Natural River
Management Plan by Newhall Land and Farming's biologist Dr. Lou Cortois in
2000, below the old railroad bridge. This same biologist also found arroyo toads
in the Natural River Management Plan in 1994 in uplands adjacent to the Santa
Clara River in near the confluence of San Francisquito Creek.
It is noteworthy to add that in 1999 Arroyo Toad surveys conducted by Lou
Cortois for the Castaic Lake Water Agency in this project area were refused by
US Fish and Wildlife Service, because Dr. Cortois in his report to USF&WS
concluded this area appeared to be outside of the known range of the Arroyo
Toad. This clearly appears to be an example of a biologist preparing documents
to reflect the desires of the developer, not the truth.
g.) The initial study states that the banks of the Santa Clara River are too steep
and that Arroyo Toads can not climb out of the river adjacent to the Hart Pony
League Fields. However, other biologists, including Frank Hovore and Ruben
Ramirez, have observed arroyo Toads climbing steep slopes and roadsides in
upper Castaic Creek, and we do not agree that this area is too steep to allow
arroyo toads to climb out of the river. You further state that African Clawed Frogs
have been seen climbing out of the river in this area, and these are fully aquatic
frogs, as opposed to the arroyo toad, which is much better equipped for
movement over land. If the clawed frogs can climb out of the river, the arroyo
toads can easily scale the same slopes.
h.) The summary of arroyo toad survey data collected by David Crawford of
Compliance -Biology dated May 28th, 2002 states that the river in the project area
has already been stabilized with concrete rubble. Unfortunately we have learned
that this statement is true because the Hart Pony League Field group violated the
Clean Water Act and when they dumped the concrete rubble into the channel.
altering this part of river to the point where it no longer resembles its historical or
natural topography. The Army Corps of Engineers has taken the stand that this
area must be restored to its original topography prior to any discussions or
permits to permanently alter the river adjacent to the ball fields. Therefore there
can be no approval of this project until the project area is restored as per the legal
mandate of the Army Corps of Engineers dated May 29, 2002. Then and only
then will we have full and accurate information related to the conditions of the
banks adjacent to the Hart Pony League Fields.
i.) Mr. Crawford also concluded that the uplands adjacent to the Hart Pony
League Field are unsuitable for arroyo toads because of the presence of African
Clawed Frogs.
4
The introduced African clawed frogs into the Santa Clara River pose a threat to
all native aquatic species, and therefdib will have to be controlled to protect the
federally endangered unarmed three-spined stickleback, which naturally occurs
exclusively in the Santa Clara Rivef, San Francisquito Creek and Bouquet
Canyon Creek. The control and elimination of clawed frogs to protect the
stickleback will benefit the arroyo toad and all other aquatic species in the Santa
Clara River.
Mr. Crawford also stated that the uplands do not support habitat for the arroyo
toad because of its disturbed condition. Dr. Dan C. Holland, a biologist
specializing in the ecology of native fishes, amphibians and reptiles, with 25 years
of professional experience studying the -arroyo toad concludes that arroyo toads
occur in a variety of upland habitats including disturbed areas and urban wildland
interfaces in excess of 1 km (3250) from the edge of upland/riparian interface.
This means that not only will the proposed alteration and destruction of habitat
within riparian areas negatively affect the toad, existing and planned developed
within adjacent upland areas will also (for a variety of reasons) inevitably
negatively affect the species.
* (see attached Dan Holland 7/16/2001, Natural River Management Plan)
j.) The initial study states that there is already bank stabilization along the
proposed project area. We have learned that the Hart Pony League Field has
been altering the banks of the river in the project area and creating large mounds
of sand in the river without having first obtained the necessary legal permitting
from the Army Corp of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and
Game. Army Corp has requested that the Hart Pony League Group restore the
topography of the river. The Army Corp has also advised the League that they
can not apply for a permit for permanent soilIcement mix until they have
addressed and corrected the unauthorized activities along this entire stretch of
the river. Lieutenant Penny Liota of the California Department of Fish and Game
also has advised the Hart Pony League Group that they will need to remove all of
the concrete rubble previously dumped into the riverbed, and that this must be
done by hand. Clearly, the illegal actions which have resulted in the alteration of
the habitat are not justification for ignoring the potential existence of the toad.
5
Additional issues pertaining to the Natural River Management Plan.
1) Biologists working for Newhall Land and Farming, including Impact Sciences,
Inc., Aquatic Consulting Inc. (Cortois), and others, must sign confidentiality
agreements prohibiting disclosure of findings to the public agencies; these
agreements threaten to sue the biologists should they report their findings to any
person, state or federal agency. Such agreements clearly are intended to hide the
findings of the biologists, and may in fact render subsequent Environmental
Impact Reports unacceptable. Individuals, groups and agencies cannot know to
mitigate for the loss of special status species and their habitat if they have are not
rightfully and completely been made aware of the natural resources present in a
project area.
2) Wetlands within the boundaries of the Natural River Management Plan were
destroyed last summer by Newhall Land and Farming. Teresa Savaikie, along
with members of the Friends of the Santa Clara River witnessed Newhall Land
and Farming employees de -watering a tributary channel without a biologist
present. At the time the employee was draining the wetland, Teresa observed
and collected native fishes which were identified by biologists as Arroyo Chub,
and although there is debate as to whether this species was historically present in
the Santa Clara River, the fact is this habitat sustained native fish, amphibians
and riparian -dependent birds, which were not identified in the Natural River
Management Plan. After discussing this issue with Morgan Wetche of the
California Department of Fish and Game, we were advised that she also believed
that such tributary drainage's and ponds were not adequately addressed in the
Natural River Management Plan.
We remain hopeful that the losses of these wetlands will be mitigated within the
Natural River Management Plan and encourage the City of Santa Clarita to have
the integrity and courage to back us on this issue. We want and need natural
open space in this valley, and we believe that the proper mitigation for losses of
local habitat caused a local developer should be implemented within our river not
on some other river over 100 miles away, as has been proposed. Teresa
Savaikie brought this to the attention of the City Council last summer but the City
failed to take any action. This is in violation of the mitigation measures the City of
Santa Clarita has agreed to apply to such project impacts and to actions under
the NRMP.
I
Issue 2) New and Significant findings that are still being considered by US
Fish and Wildlife Service - Hazing Machines
In 2000, bird hazing machines [noise -makers] were observed in the project area.
Newhall Land and Farming installed these hazing machines to exclude possible
nesting by the Endangered least Bells vireo. Through documents received by US
Fish and Wildlife Service, we have learned that one Newhall Land biologist
advised that agency that Newhall Land had been using these machines for a
period of approximately 5 years. Another Newhall Land biologist is quoted as
saying the hazing machines were installed from Bouquet Canyon Bridge to
McBean Parkway and 2.5 miles up San Francisquito Creek. The same biologist
stated that these machines resulted in a lower riparian dependent bird species
count. The entire Natural River Management Plan area was beset with hazing
machines to keep away the vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow -
billed cuckoo. It should be noted that these machines were reported to have been
utilized in the evenings and through the night, and that residents living above San
Francisquito Creek had to keep their windows closed at night to screen out the
noise.
The use of these hazing machines undoubtedly resulted in inadequate surveys
for amphibians and riparian dependent songbirds and raptors along those
portions of the creek. US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to Newhall Land
and Farming stating that they never gave their permission to utilize these
machines, and that, in short, Newhall Land and Farming had violated the
Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and are in
noncompliance with the adopted mitigation measures set forth in their own
Natural River Management Plan, including mitigations fpr the North Valencia
Annexation, North Valencia II Annexation and the Westcreek Project.
Inability of the City and Newhall Land and Farming to monitor the
mitigation in the Natural River Management Plan and violation of the
Biological Opinion issued by US Fish and Wildlife.
The riverbed between Bouquet and McBean Parkway contains stands of Newhall
Land mitigation cottonwood trees that are dead and dying. Friends of the Santa
Clara River first noticed the dead trees in early of spring 2001, but to date no
action has been taken relative to the conditions of the mitigation to determine the
cause of death, or to remediate the problem. This results in a net loss of riparian
habitat along the river channel wetlands. Had the City or Newhall Land been
7
monitoring these trees as agreed to in the mitigation measure under which they
were planted, there may have be -&n opportunity to save them, or insure
replanting.
The Natural River Management Plan and Biological Opinion issued by US Fish
and Wildlife Service clearly states that the City and Newhall Land and Farming
would erect barriers, and fencing to preclude unauthorized access by vehicles
and pets into the river and its tributaries. Such fencing does not exist, and many
sensitive habitat areas are overrun with vehicles, shooters, dogs, and cats.
Friends of the Santa Clara River has advised the City of Santa Clarita by both
Newspaper articles and by telephone, and have even met with the Sheriff, to try
and get the vehicle trespass problem addressed, but to date the City and the
Sheriff have done nothing of consequence, nor has Newhall Land made any effort
to stop illegal vehicle use in the river. Off road vehicle use is eroding the banks of
the river, the soft bottom channels and pools that historically occurred therein,
destroying occupied stickleback and arroyo toad habitat. in violation of state and
federal laws. It must be curtailed.
The City of Santa Clarita and Newhall Land agreed to do educational outreach
programs to inform the general public about the importance of the Santa Clara
River, but to date such actions have not been taken.
The City of Santa Clarita has failed to address or show proper concern for the
illegal dumping activities adjacent to the Hart Pony League field. Though perhaps
well -intended, these actions were taken in direct violation of state and federal
laws, and are now being used to justify further damage to the habitat.
In closing we believe we have clearly identified issues and instances in which
Newhall Land and Farming has demonstrated a willingness to conceal and
withhold information related to endangered species and their habitat on their
properties. The presence of the arroyo toad and other previously undisclosed
listed species within various Newhall Land project areas affectively invalidates or
severely compromises existing environmental impact documentation and
analyses, and specifically invalidates a large part the NRMP. Contrary to the
assertions of Newhall Land and Farming, the NRMP document does not address
many critical issues related to arroyo toads and other species present. The
proposed "mitigation measures" will likely contribute directly to additional taking of
the species and further degradation of their habitat. As such we strongly suggest
that you reject the existing submittals in this regard and require the preparation,
submission, and critical peer and public review of complete, new environmental
impact reports for the individual projects and the cumulative effects of same.
8
We request that the City of Santa Clarita withhold approval of this project
until:
1) the Hart Pony League Fields have restored the Santa Clara River in the project
area back to its historic topography as mandated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. Then and only then can the true value of this habitat value
be known.
2) After the area has been restored to its natural topography, qualified unbiased
biologists must be hired to adequately survey the area and report back their
findings. The City of Santa Clarita should require that such w;, .- ba performed by
\.n Independen\, quallftad biologist ;lot c,.rrently associated with Newhall Land
and Farming projects. We request that the City work with this biologist to explore
every feasible means of bank protection possible, assessing whatever methods
might be available to protect property and habitat for the toad and other aquatic
species.
3) Hold off on approval of the project until US Fish and Wildlife Service defines
the critical habitat for the Arroyo toad, and wait until the Biological Opinion is
rendered by the Service. We believe that if the biological opinion of Fish and
Wildlife Service determines that the bank stabilization and other activities related
to the Natural River Management Plan will destroy habitat for the Arroyo Toad,
then the public has the right to know this information. This is the only way the
whole of the populace of this valley can be made honestly and fully aware of
potential project impacts to sensitive species.
And, as a final note, it is important to know too that construction activities- per
the Federal Migratory Bird Treat Act as noted in the Natural River Management
Plan and the North Valencia Annexation- cannot proceed within 300 feet of any
nesting songbird, and that several such species are nesting within the project
zone of impacts at the time of this letter. Again, until such impacts are fully known
and disclosed, actions may be taken which place the City, Newhall Land, or the
Pony League group in violation -of state or federal laws. All v.V ask is 1 bt this
project proceed carefully and legally, and that the due protections of the laws of
the land be applied to natural resources it � Santa- Clar „a, as they are thivoug Nut
the rest of this great nation.
Peter Galvin
Center for Biologiical Diversity,
cc: Rick Farris, Diane Nods, US Fish and Wildlife
Robert High, California Department of Fish and Game
Penny Liota, California Deparunent of Fish and Game
Friends of the Santa Clara River. SCOPE Sa.^ta Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
Environmental Defense Center, Sierra Club
Dan Cxper, California Audubon, Kris 011emkamp, San Femando Valley Audubon
Bruce Henderson. Arany Corp of Engineers
ATTACHMENTS"
1) Army Corps of Engineering notice of violation to the Han Pony League Field
representatives, violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act for illegal activities
along this proposed project.
2) Document from the North Valencia Annexation that clearly identifies that
impacts to the river and its tributaries were being addressed in the Natural River
Management Plan, consequently this project and any alteration to the river must wait
until the Biological Opinion in completed and because Arroyo Toads are known to occur
in disturbed uplands the entire project should be subject to the Biological Opinion and
the provisions of the Natural River Management Plan.
2) Arroyo Toad brief information sheet - source US Fish and Wildlife Service
3) Arroyo Toad habitat quality map prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc., 2001
4) Dr. Dan Holland renowned herpetologist specializing in the Arroyo Toad -
September 2001.
5) Arroyo Toad removed from Biological Opinion preparation in 1998 based on the
assumption the arroyo toad not known to occur in the project area.
6) North Valencia Annexation - EIR - Species Status and potential of occurring in
the project area. - note observed below McBean Parkway.
7) Hazing machines installed in the entire Natural River Management Plan including
the river adjacent to the Hart Pony League Fields and areas that were not under
construction. 12 pages in total which includes a letter from US Fish and Wildlife
denying that they ever gave permission to Newhall Land and Farming to utilize the
machines. Also included is results of surveys pointing out that the hazing machines were
installed in the entire NRMP boundaries.
05/29/02 WED 10:25 FAX 8055852154 ACOS Ventura Regulatory
0ou_
CESPL-CO-R
May 29, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: S. HART BASEBALL LEAGUE - UNAUTHORIZED ACnVITIES (2002 -00782 -AOA)
1. On February 18, 1998, the Corps of Engineers issued an emergency authorization for bank
stabilization activities in the Santa Clara River to protect the existing baseball fields to the S. Hart
Baseball League (98 -00320 -AOA)._ The above emergency authorization expired in July of 1998;
however, the permittee continued to maintain and even expand the above bank stabilization structures for
the next three years without authorization from the Corps of Engineers. In the spring of 2001, the above
unauthorized activities were reported to the Corps of Engineers by the Friends of the Santa Clara River.
The Corps conducted an investigation, visiting the site, contacting titu City of Santa Clarita, Newhall
Land and Farm and attempting to contact several members of the baseball league to determine the'
responsible parry for the above activities. In February 2002, an agent for the baseball league contacted
the Corps about constructing permanent soil cement bank stabilization to protect the baseball fields. At
that time, the Corps of Engineers informed the agent that an application for permanent bank stabilization
for the baseball fields could not be evaluated until the unauthorized activities in the project area were
resolved. The Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit with representatives from the baseball league on
February 2I, 2002 and, to resolve the above violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the
representatives from the baseball league agreed to remove the unauthorized fill material and restore the
natural river topography. A follow up letter dated March 13, 2002 indicated that the baseball league
would be preparing a restoration plan for the Corps approval, which they hoped to complete by mid-April
2002.
2. As of May 29, 2002, the Corps has not received a restoration plan from the baseball league, but recent
calls from their agent indicate that it should be completed shortly. Once the Corps receives the
restoration plan, it will be forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure compliance with the
Endangered Species Act. Once the restoration plan has been approved by both the Corps and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the baseball league would be required to immediately implement the
restoration plan and remove the unauthorized fill material, restoring the project area to pre -project
contours.
Aaron O. Allen, Ph.D.
Senior Project Manager
DISTRIBUTION:
Ms. Wendy Deets (City of Santa Clarity)
Summary
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." The alternatives analysis
conducted in Section 6.0 of this EIR determined that Alternative 5, the 40 Percent Reduction
alternative, would be preferred from an environmental perspective.
8. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
During the circulation of the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study to public agencies, several issues
were raised which are addressed in the EIR. These issues include the following:
• Development in the vicinity of a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone;
• Impacts on biological resources within the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek;
• Potential site erosion, and sedimentation to the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Creek;
• Potential for bank stabilization impacts;
• Traffic effects on local roadways and intersections;
• Viewshed impacts;
• Storm drainage/increased runoff;
• Traffic effects on local roadways and intersections;
• Increase in air emissions from project traffic;
• Increase in noise from project uses and traffic;
• Water availability;
• Treatment capacity of local water reclamation plants;
• Additional demands on educational and library facilities;
• Increase in calls for sheriff and fire services; and
• Cumulative development in Santa Clarita Valley.
Discretionary approvals required in association with the proposed project include the following:
City of Santa Clarita:
• Approval of North Valencia Annexation;
• Approval of General Plan Amendment;
• Approval Specific Plan Zone Change (Pre -Zone);
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51931;
• Approval of a Development Agreement; and
• Approval of an Oak Tree Permit.
ES -7 North Valentin Amu�sttion Drft EIR
`I August 1997
Other Agencies:
Future Responsible Agency Actionsl
Summary
• � fo reaa Department of Fish Section 1601/1603 and 2081 permitscof the State Fish and Game Code
• United States Deartment of the Section 404 permit of the Federal Clean Water Act
Army, Corps of Engineers
• Regional Water Quality National Pollutant Discharge Control Board Elimination System permit and Section
401 permit of the Federal Clean Water Act
• South Coast Air Quality Various Management anfor au emissions regulation found in the Air Quality
Management District Mans �
1771is table is not intended to provide the complete and final listing of future actions required to implement the
fSpecific plan. This is an attempt to identify those actions which are known at this time to be required in the
uture.
Additional permits will possibly be required from Army Corps (e.g., Semon 404 Permit), and Fish &
Game (e.g., 1603 Permit) for construction of the proposed bank stabilization and bridge crossings. It
should be noted that the parent company of the project applicant is presently requesting approval of a
General Section 404 Permit from Army Corps and Section 1600 permit from the Department of Fish and
Game for the Santa Clara River Natural River Management Plan that includes construction of various
improvement activities along the Santa Clara River and the San Francisquito Creek. Many of the
activities addressed by that General Permit request are shown to omrc within the boundary of the
proposed project. An effort has been made as part of this project to move as much development activity
out of the General Permit area as possible. Consequently, it is possible that not all of the improvements
addressed in the General Permit would actually oonu. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit will also be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles Region, for stormwater runoff discharge from the project site to San Francisquito Creek and the
Santa Clara River.
L.
ES -8 North valnaja Am=&,m Dp FIR
AurW 1997
What is the arroyo southwestern toad?
The arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus)
is a small, light greenish grey or buff -colored toad with dark -
spotted, warty skin. Arroyo toads were historically found in
streams and drainages in California from San Luis Obispo
County to San Diego County, and south into Baja California,
Mexico. Currently, populations of the arroyo toad in the
United States are found in approximately 20 drainages from
Monterey County to San Diego County.
Arroyo toads prefer shallow pools and open, sandy stream
terraces with cottonwoods, oaks, or willows. They breed in
small to large streams that retain enough water from late March
to mid-June to support the tadpoles until they metamorphose.
Females lay eggs in shallow, slow moving portions of streams
that have little or no vegetation. Juveniles and adults forage for
insects on sand and gravel bars with little or no grass or other
low -growing cover. Subadult and adult arroyo toads excavate
shallow burrows on streamside terraces or in the uplands where
they shelter during the day when the surface is damp, or for
longer intervals during the dry season.
Based on recaptures of marked toads, lifespan in the wild has
been estimated at only 5 years. Arroyo toads are eaten by many
species of birds, several reptiles and mammals, and introduced
bullfrogs and fish. Other natural mortality factors are poorly
understood. Better lifespan estimates and information on
mortality may be obtained from current studies using pitfall
trapping and radiotelemetry. Short-term results from these
studies are being used to develop better management strategies
to protect the species. As more information is obtained,
management plans will be altered appropriately.
Why is the arroyo toad endangered?
Habitat destruction and degradation caused by streambed
alteration, agriculture, and urban development have greatly
:ontributed to the decline of the arroyo toad. Dam construction
done has been responsible for the loss of 40 percent of their
>nginal range. Other threats include mining, grazing,
-ecreational activities, and water management practices..
Arroyo Southwestern Toad
The loss of at least 75 percent of the perennial stream habitat
in Califomia is bad enough, but the arroyo toad also faces
threats within the remaining 25 percent of its habitat because
of non-native animal species such as bullfrogs, bass, and
sunfish. These introduced species prey on tadpoles and adults
and may significantly impact the species' ability to maintain
healthy populations. tion -native plants such as arundo and
tamarisk grow so densely that arroyo toads can not use the
terraces for foraging, in addition to shading the pools and
making them unsuitable for breeding. Preserving habitat for
the arroyo toad cannot assure its survival unless there is
managed control of the exotic species that have had a major
impact on already decimated toad populations.
What is being done to save the arroyo toad?
The Service listed the arroyo toad as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act on December 16. 1994. A
recovery plan for the toad was approved in July 1999. That
plan focuses on providing sufficient breeding and upland
habitats to sustain viable populations of arroyo toads
throughout the species' range. Important components of the
recovery plan are the establishment of three recovery units and
the imnlementa+ nn -r,r -4,r--- ---agement strategy.
The recovery of the arroyo toad will depend on the ability of
the Service to work effectively with public and private land
managers and owners to preserve and enhance currently
occupied habitat, implement habitat restoration programs, and
secure additional habitat for expanding or reestablished
populations.
For more information, contact
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ventura Ftsh and wddhfe Office
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, CA 93003
Ph: 805-644-1766
or
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2730 Loker Ave. West,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ph: 760431-9440
'rs Septa^11bx2001
To the iudi•„c and gentler er. ofthe C. Uncil
Pie^;e ante- tlu letter into the public 1 ord regarding the r:roKrs_d ban,. staf iIizatioa
r.easwe along the Sanas. Clara Fiver under corsideratien this evening Ny name is Dr. Dan
lloliaad, and 1 am a professional heti h loglrt u'irh approximately 25years ofexllerience with
rece": Sone
[]-tied. fishes, nientamp'beansorts and reptiles in r.outhem m California. I aIlse the first author on two
turlent repdewing with the ecology, hab,tat use and pipuila ion demo(;raFhics of
no toads. ; am euAy concern, d oye_ the potential
arrimpacts ofihis proposed hank
statali da^ project to t•nc st`tive spe_ics of amphibians - the westem :padefoot toad
hammordlii) - 2. California Depr maent of Fish & frame Species ur_'Specia f'arcern.
and he arroyo toad Eufi; ,:a4jnrrr:cur} listed as _�ederally Endangered.
I briefly sur. eyed the area of the proposed project in early 200, to m%y professions!
W17.1ca, it is likely that arroyo toads may occur it the area. 'suitable habitat etists in and near the
Iropoz' j r_uject site. I also wcarnented tCc presence of weslenu spadefoot toads in the area. I
would punt ?Ct that the NRlelp doe.; not address either of these species In the proje-ct area. nor
pmrnral imlxrcts to them front the rToptsed earth-distu,hieg and ccnstnicnon actietties
Hu% :,ia served as a:;t;xrvising biological monitor on similar cvnstruetiu•, efforts
rc_
_lsewheI Can state With carTainty that these types of efforts car] aux+ do traduce direct mortality
and ether n Yahve i.rspaets tc• both anovo toads and western spadefoot toajs. I'or a,,ovo toads,
this would be defined as take under the pro-,tsions of the Endangered Species Act. I would point
out that i* xr:vvo toad: are present !z tSe area, and that if construction or ether actinides result in
rake;eitcar in the four) of harm or hmss:aenU, thea this would. constitute apnnla facie violation
(ifFa3aal taw in the fo:tn of the Er1dz-.Eered Species Ac:, as no Sectuor, 7 consultation has
occurred prior to the actian and no Ittcader:tal Take Permit has been ::ssued
To protect the rity ani! prospectivA contractors Eo: 1 potential criminal c
in ;his si*.nation, I strongly urge t.+dt you deter anyactio[] on thio rnatter umtil is it tlity
PV'N:ntW presence or ubsence of the arroyo toad from the area have been determi " the
thrd parties, and t`,e appropriate legs) review conducted h try ve
Smit_ Additional)y, dlscu.ssions •with the Califor:.is De y the United Stairs Fi & Wildl
in regard to tic l-nu%n pnl;ence of the western spadefoot t �nen�kt of vO � he oshould occur
Comment nn this matter ppotilmity tc,
CX,). a A449.,,,,t100
Dan C. Holland, Ph D.
334A EasT Faflbrook Strut
Fsll6rxic CA
92029
�O
United States Department of the Interior
FISH A1v7,, WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ver:u.3 Fish and W'itabre Offii:e
2493 Portola Road, Suite a
',entora. Calitorr.;a 93003
A
MUM
NOY 3 01998
Sd60LATORk AMCE
T C64
Psh ,.ben 2�, 1998
CAS 06 otcl,&Ldk�6
Davi J. as 7 .anon, Chief
Nortl�Coast Section, Regulatory Branch �
U.S. PCorps of Engineers
Pox
5
P.O. $ox 532711 O ! f
Los 4ngeles, Caiifomi t 90053-2325
I
Subject: Biologi�a! Opinion for the Valencia Company's Clean Water Act Section 404
Authcriz.ation for ?ortions ofthe Santa Clara River, Los Angeles County,
California (1 -3 -98 -FIC -61)
i
Dear �vtr. Castanon:
This �' iological opinion responds to your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), pLrsiant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amenped (the Act). Your request was dated July 16, 1998 and received in our office on July 17,
1998' At issue are the effects that issuance of a general permit by the Army Corps of Engineers
(Cos), pursuant to section 404 of the Clear. Water Act, to the Valencia Company for numerous
activilties along the Santa Clara River may have on the unatmored threespine stickleback
I askrosteus aculeatus x illiamsom), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and the
south estem willow flycatcher (Empidonax trai ii exrimus), all federally listed as endangered
species, and critical habitat proposed and designated for unarmored threespine stickleback and
least Oeil's vireo, respectively
` The o s initially included the endangered arro o toad Buro microsca hus cal. orricus in its
� y'y ( pl )� 1.
\ requ st for consultation. However, the arroyo toad is not known to occur in the project area. `� l
-A Re�II discussion between staff from the Corps and the Service, the Corps requested that this '�'� ,
specibs be eliminated from the consultation.. We concur with the Corps' determination. that the
proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered ivevin's barberry (Berberis
i nevi ii) or slender -horned spineflower (Dod:cahema leptoceras) because these plants occur well
outside of the project area. The arroyo toad, Nevin's barberry and slender -horned spir-eflower
will not be addressed father in this document.
This biological opinion was prepared using information from the following sources: your July
16, 1 �98 request for consultation regarding the proposed action; the biological assessment for the
I 00D
vodk
Table 4.6-2 'k .
Special -Status Wildlife Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the Project Sfte
4.6 Biota
4.6-19 Nath Vskn Amumdun Drsft EiR
August 1997
INSECT
Saog 'o Blue
Plebulina tui dionis
ro posers ' m alluvialrecorded
from San to Canyon and Newhall.
FISH
Gasterosfeus acu eatus un ulmsonr
Unarmored threespine stickleback
FE, SE
Present; will occur in San Francisquito Creek an
the Santa Clara River during periods of adequate
water flow.
Gila orcuth
o chub
CSC
Present; recorded during aquatic surveys in area.
tostomus santaanae
FC, CSC
Present, observed during recent surveys in Santa
Santa Ana sucker
Clara River and San Ranciscluitc, Creek
AMPHIBIANS
Arroyo toad
FE, CSC
Moderate potential, habitat on-site. Observed
Bufo microsca hus calf ornicus
in 1996 below McBean Parkway.
astern spa oot
Scaphiopus hammondi
poten ' ro occur upstream or project
site in Santa Clara River. Not observed during site
sure
Rana aurora dr tonii
Low potential; suitable Fa9tat, Fut species not
recorded in area m recent
REPTILES
kmwmomonta pallida
in to River Road
bridge; low potential to Bouquet Canyon Road and
in San Fr 'to Creek.
San Diego homedlizarderase
Phrynosomo coronatum 6lainvilki
to potern ' in open sage
scrub, alluvial scrub, and sandy terraces associated
with river corridors. Not observed during site
sury
California oro
Phrynosoma coronatum frontak
erate to highpoterh ' in open coastal sage
scrub, alluvial snub, and sandy terraces associated
with rivercorridors, high pota� . in open coastal
saxe scrub. uring site
Coastal western whipwhiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris
multiscutatus
Moderate to high potential in scrub anel wash
habitats. Observed during 1997 site surveys.
Silvery legless lizwdModerate
Anniella pulchra pulchra
potential in areas of loose sod within
understory of coastal scrub, chaparral, and open
riparian habitats. Not observed during site
surveys.Ras
y boa
Lichanura Hvirgata
PSC
Lawpoten in sandy and rocky areas
grasslands, coastal scrub, and chaparral.Not
observed during site sure
San Bernardino ringneck snake
DUdophis punctatus modestus
Moderate to high potential in sandy and rocky
areas of grass , coastal scrub, and chaparral.
Not observed d0a site
Coast patch -nosed
Salvadora htsalepis virgultea
erate to rugh potential in sandy and rocky
areas of grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, and
wash habitats. Not observed during site sury
wo-stri d�aarttteer s
Thamn is hammondii
ro moderate to occur in
Santa Clara River downstream of site.
4.6-19 Nath Vskn Amumdun Drsft EiR
August 1997
SCOPE
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment
TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY
AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386
7-5-02
City Council
CM)
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
o
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355-n
r-rn
r"rCJ*t co
Re: Auto Dealership in the Santa Clara River, Master Case # 02-022 v
=
v
Dear Council Members: no
�^ ru
a
Thank -you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Our organization is grateful to the
Friends of the Santa Clara River for appealing this proposal as no spokes person was able to
attend the Planning Commission hearing on the subject on behalf of SCOPE. Such a
controversial proposal would normally warrant more than one hearing, so we were surprised
and disappointed at being unable to comment. We wish to register our opposition to this
project as it is currently proposed. A return to the Planning Commission for review and
adjustments to the proposal may alleviate these issues and change our current position.
Public Process
We would like to begin our comments by objecting to the improper public process with which
this proposal has proceeded. The siting of an auto dealership at this location is a change from
the specific plan and requires a conditional use permit due to activities associated with car
repair shops. A CUP should have automatically triggered a new initial study and circulation to
concerned agencies. The proposal also includes a permit to move almost twice the amount of
dirt from a different site than the originally approved project. This activity should have
triggered at the very least an amended EIR to address the additional truck traffic and air
pollution associated with the proposal. The City did not prepare or circulate either of these
documents. In fact, they did not even begin to address the new issues in some cases, until the
Friends of the Santa Clara River appealed the project. Because the project proceeded in an
illegal manner, it should be returned to the Planning Commission so that it can receive
adequate review and comment. The monies paid by the Friends of the Santa Clara River
should be refunded to them since the City did not comply with its own legal process.
It is our understanding that the City Council has planned the appeal hearing in such a fashion
as to allow twice as much time to the project proponent as to the appellant., Friends of the
Santa Clara River, that requested and paid for the hearing. When added to the time for a City
staff presentation that also supports the project, the inequality becomes even more substantial.
The refusal to give "equal time" is a denial of our rights and those of the Friends of the Santa
Clara River to due process, equal protection and redress of grievances under Article I, Section
3 and 7 of the California Constitution. California case law requiring fair hearings already exists
supporting this position. (Horn v. Ventura).
SCOPE Comments on the Auto Dealership Project Master Case # 02-022 2
The twenty one day period to receive comments on the initial study ends July 8th, the same
day that the public hearing is scheduled. Therefore there is no time for staff to analyze and
include in their presentation the valid issues that will come to light from responses to the initial
study. Setting up a hearing under such circumstances makes it obvious that the City does not
intend to review these issues.
The project proponent and the borrow site developer have refused to enter certain documents
on which this approval may depend, into the administrative including current and previous
Phase I reviews for the borrow site. Instead the developer invited particular members of the
community to review the documents at his office, because he did not want to make them
available to other members of the community. While we appreciated the opportunity to review
the documents, we do not feel it is appropriate to exclude these documents from the record on
which a project approval depends. They should be available for review by the public at large.
Failure to Notify and Receive Comments from other Concerned Agencies
It is our understanding that neither US Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Dept of Fish and Game nor the Regional Water Quality Control Board were consulted
regarding this project. All these agencies have jurisdiction over important parts of the project
in order to protect the public interest. Failure to inform them may cause future delays or
changes in the project where it is not compatible with state and federal law and the public
interest. It may also result in a sub standard project requiring additional review to remedy the
problems. Further, US Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps were not consulted during the
North Valencia 1 Specific Plan process. Instead that document claimed review would occur at
a future date. The City is now claiming tiering on that Specific Plan and again deferring
important wildlife and hydrology issues to a future date. Since there is a "fair argument" that
the endangered arroyo toad may be present in the vicinity of the project, it is inappropriate and
illegal to defer review by these agencies. This is especially true since both the City and
Newhall Land are well aware that a Biological Opinion on the status of the Arroyo Toad is
forthcoming from US Fish and Wildlife.
Consistency with other Planning Documents
Page two of the staff report states "The construction of the individual auto dealerships on the
Pony League site will be subject to review and approval of a Development Review application
for consistency with the NV 1 Specific Plan. A determination of consistency with the Specific
Plan should occur prior to project approval. If the dealerships are not consistent, the project
should not be approved. This is especially true since the Specific Plan seems to indicate that a
portion of the project will remain upland preserve and it does not appear that upland preserve
is retained in the new proposal. (See attachment 1, Map from Specific Plan indicating upland
preserve)
Loss of recharge area is inconsistent with the County of Los Angeles Area Plan and the City of
Santa Clarita's General Plan where those plans speak to preservation of water resources.
SCOPE Comments on the Auto Dealership Project Master Case # 02-022 3
"Fair Areument" reeardine Presence of Arroyo Toads and Unarmored
Three -spine stickleback and Least Bell's Vireo
A negative declaration is not an appropriate document for a project that may impact
endangered species. Additional bank stabilization proposed in this project may affect the UTS
by increasing velocity and eliminating "refugia" for this endangered fish. (See attachment 2,
Comments of Jonathan Baskin, Biologist on 404 permit for this project.
The City of Santa Clarita recently requested the re-initiation of consultation with US Fish and
Wildlife for a project upstream of this proposal. They included the fact that the Arroyo Toad
was found downstream subsequent to the original Biological Opinion for the project (see
attachment 3, Request by the City of Santa Clarita for re-initiation of consultation for the TMC
project). Now we have a project almost adjacent to that new discovery and yet the City feels
that not only is further review not need, but has failed to contact the responsible agencies. This
is hypocritical to say the least. The City cannot have it one way for one developer and another
way for another developer.
Documents submitted by the project applicant into recent federal court proceedings regarding
the Arroyo Toad indicate that the project area is prime habitat for the arroyo toad. This
information is subsequent to all the environmental approvals for this project and comes from
the applicant's own consultants (Impact Sciences, see attachment 4).
Subsequent to the North Valencia Specific Plan 1997 EIR, it was discovered that bird "hazing
machines" where being used by Newhall Land and Farming to keep several endangered species
including the Least Bell's Vireo and Willow Fly Catcher, from nesting in the area. These
machine also affected several other bird species of special concern known to be present and
nest in the area. (See attachment 5). Surveys for these birds should be re -conducted now that
US Fish and Wildlife has required removal of these machines.
Need for Subsequent EIR
This hearing constitutes the next administrative permit and gives the public the opportunity to
bring new impacts that have occurred since the original 1997 EIR to the Council for review
and mitigation. Due to changes in circumstances regarding the Arroyo Toad, additional
proposed bank stabilization and cumulative impacts of intense building both upstream and
down stream that may increase flooding and erosion to downstream residents and businesses,
the City should require and circulate a subsequent EIR.
Impacts to Downstream Users
Substantial building has occurred adjacent to the Santa Clara River both upstream and
downstream since approval of the original project. These cumulative impacts were not
addressed in the Specific Plan or the Arany Corps permit. These projects include, but are not
limited to, a storage facility just north of Lost Canyon Rd., the Palmer apartments that
incorporated concrete bank stabilization, buildout of the specific plan, industrial development
in the Castaic area. Cumulative impacts of flooding, erosion, and water quality should be
evaluated. Downstream residents and agricultural interests should be given the opportunity to
SCOPE Comments on the Auto Dealership Project Master Case # 02-022 4
comment on this project. (See attachment 6, US Army Corps drawing of impacts of
narrowing a river).
Well Closures
Since the staff report states on page 5 and since the project proponent has clearly stated that
they intend to close existing water wells and open new wells and this portion of the project was
not addressed in any previous review document, the City must evaluate the impacts of this new
portion of the project. Location of the new wells should especially be evaluated for any
impacts on biological resources and endangered species.
Potential for Contaminated Soil to be placed in a water re-charee area
The City the developer have agreed to test the soil from the borrow site at the Center Point
Industrial project. This agreement should become part of the conditions of approval. The soil
should be tested for heavy metals, contaminants found on the adjacent Bennite site and for
atrazine and other pesticides since the Phase I document for this project indicated previous
farming activities. It is important for public health that these contaminants not be allowed to
leach into a water re -charge area. These tests should be available for review by the public.
Further, the staff report indicates on page 4 that a Phase I environmental review of the project
site indicated that soil testing should be conducted due to the presence of underground tanks.
This testing should be conducted and available for public review BEFORE project approval so
that mitigation for any identified problems can be included in the conditions of approval.
Although the developer has provided a two page summary of soil tests, the back-up
documentation including where the tests occured, chain of custody and actual lab sheet reports
where not included as would be found in a normal soil report. Apparently testing was not
done for pesticides or other contaminants found on the adjacent Bermite and potentiall found
on the NTI properties. A comprehensive soil report should be available to the public and the
Council prior to approval.
Traffic and Air Pollution
This new project proposes a substantial increase in soil and transportation of that soil. In the
recent past, the City has required EIRs for projects that require this large a borrow and
transport amount (for Example the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project). It is estimated that
this new project could add an additional 55,000 truck trips to Soledad Canyon Road, an
already busy throughway, yet no traffic analysis was done. This project is also in a non -
attainment zone for PM10s (particulate matter). Additional evaluation and mitigation for air
pollution impacts should have been required.
Failure to Address Cumulative Impacts
As stated above, numerous projects have been built since the original analysis in the specific
plan. Hard surfaces have substantially increased. This circumstance increases the amount of
the velocity of run off that is generated into this area of the river. Additional new hard scaping
urbanization has also reduced recharge. (See attachment 7, Richard Slade, Hydrologist)
SCOPE Comments on the Auto Dealership Project Master Case # 02-022 5
Conclusion
Since the staff report states that the project footprint is reduced in size, we would like to
suggest that some of the concerns presented to the Council regarding endangered species could
be addressed by ensuring that the additional unused open area occurs is located along the river,
thus allowing any bank stabilization to occur at a further distance from potential critical habitat
and retaining upland preserve.
The City Council should delay approval of this project until the Biological Opinion on the
Arroyo Toad is released. Since this document is in its final stages, and the project may not
move forward in the 131' jurisdiction zone without approval of the Arary Corps anyway and it
appears that additional analysis is needed, this does not seem an onerous compromise.
The City Council should remand the project to Planning Commission for additional review and
refund the appellant fee charged to the Friends of the Santa Clara River.
Thank -you for your time
me e1y,
Lynne Plana k
President
Attachments as indicated in the text.
Kevin Malone
21345 Placerita Canyon Road
Santa Clarita, CA 91321
RECEIVED AND MADE A
PART OF THE RECORD AT
July 8, 2002 - 18 /0 a MEETING
Mayor Frank Ferry and Members of the City Council ITEM NO.
City of Santa Clarita FROM: L J V42"'"
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Pony League Project —Mercedes-Benz Dealership
Dear Mayor Ferry, Members of the City Council, and fellow Residents:
I am writing this letter on behalf of myself, Eddie Murray, and our proposed business of
Mercedes Benz of Valencia. As you know, we have been working with Newhall Land and city
staff members over the last several months to develop a Mercedes-Benz dealership on the subject
property. The opportunity of locating a Mercedes-Benz dealership within the City of Santa
Clarita is exciting for my team and me and, clearly, is a win-win proposition for the community.
It provides for continued economic growth for the City while maintaining the environmental
sensitivity that our residents have come to expect. It is our belief that the subject site is a
"natural" as it sits within the financial core of the city as well as maintaining close proximity to
the "Creekside Auto Row".
Over the past several months, concerns have been raised by members of our
environmental community. From our perspective, these issues have been resolved with utmost
sensitivity and concern by Newhall Land, city staff, and the Planning Commission. As members
of this community, Eddie Murray and I could not and would not, in good conscience, proceed
with a project that would even remotely jeopardize the current and future well being of our
children and neighbors. In fact, this project will be of significant benefit to the City of Santa
Clarita through the dedication and preservation of the Hart Pony Baseball Facility that will
include improved access to the facility, as well as bank stabilization for the baseball fields.
Additionally, the Mercedes-Benz project, as well as other automotive developments on the site,
will significantly increase sales tax revenue to the City.
In closing, you can be assured that we will be building a "World Class" retail center on
our parcel that we can all be proud of. We have been assured by Newhall Land that the
additional parcels will be developed following those very high standards. We look forward to
the favorable vote of the City Council on Monday evening.
Sincerely,
Kevin Malone
KM/sf
503700.1
76C6111 11S1
Santa Clarita Valley
Auto Dealers
Community Driven.
July 8, 2002
Mayor Frank Ferry and Members of the City Council
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
RECEIVED AND MADE A
PART OF TH RECORD AT
I IL( 0_MEETING
ITEM NO.
RE: Recommendation for Approval — the Auto Mall Expansion and
Pony League Improvement Project
Dear Mayor Ferry,
The following is the testimony I am submitting to the Council as part of the public
hearing on behalf of the Automobile Dealers Association.
Good Evening Mayor and City Councilmembers.
My name is Don Fleming. I am speaking as a City resident, businessman, and
President of the Santa Clarita Valley Automobile Dealers Association.
We believe it is imperative that balance be maintained among all interests.
The Automobile Dealers Association became quite concerned about the questions posed
by Friends of the River. My wife and I, our son, our family of employees, and our dogs,
Scooter and Sparkplug, all work immediately next to this site.
We would never tolerate a dangerous project with toxic soils next to us.
We launched our own investigation of each question raised. We invited Friends of the
River to join us. Our invitation was not accepted. So, we hired consultants, we made
phone calls, we had meetings and we read documents.
Clean soil at Centre Pointe, chemical waterwell pollution, endangered species protection,
polluted run off into the river, human sewage effect on the river, ground water recharge,
regulatory agency compliance, the differences between this minor change and the project
previously approved by the City in this location, and the thoroughness of the toxic tests
conducted are just some of the issues we examined.
Picone: 661 255.3000 • Fax. 661 255 0591 • 23955 Creekside Rd., Valencia. CA 91355
® t �7eq„ CHIVROLIT�N 7])�
TOYOTA I cert Ic L I N c o L N ® Dodge ® NISSAN Jeep
®' \/ rte/_
0 M R(: V NY gCURA ® ® HONDA � \/ y,M„
PAGE TWO
Our investigation has concluded. Balance has been achieved.
I am pleased to recommend on behalf of the Automobile Dealers Association that you
confirm the unanimous decision by the Planning Commission without further delay.
End of Testimony
your statesmanship and continued support.
Santa Clarita Valley Automobile Dealers Association
I
I
I
I
3727-1998 4 : 07PM FROM B I OL OG I CAL SC I D1JC£S 1 909 869 4078 P. 2
�trop'rEoy_
'G
Biological s
CPf$38
3 WeitT npifAW
�60� WealTvnp4 AMnue
Calla 917eS40.12
9
27 March 1998
27 M
F
TWphdw� (M)8694M
Fax: (9 )Ses4Cr6
POA40NA l�
trdagwt: Jnbalen&cxv=aw.edu
March 25, 1998
Ms. Leslie McNai
Environmental Specialist
California Department of Fish and Game
Region 5
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, CA 90802
Dear Ms. McNair,
The following are my comments on the Valencia Company "Draft EIVEIR ofDeoember 1997.
I) Why is the location of the areas of possible impact to the sucker fish confined to the SCR
between I-5 and Bouquet Carryon Road (p. 3.4.40) when the fish clearly can orcin anywhere in 2 -
the project area in which there is flowing surface water?
2) Why is does the area of possible impact to the UTS and arroyo chub not include the area from
McBean upstream to Bouquet Canyon Road (p. 3.440) when the impact area for the sucker, 2,1--2—
includes
1-Lincludes this areal Clearly wherever one of these fish species occurs the others can and probably
will also oc=.
3) Re p. 3.4-40 and elsewhere:
Construction activities and sedimentation directly effect UTS not only by interfering with
recpiratiM but also destroying habitat and interfering directly with breeding activities. Eggs
nests on the bottom can be killed by sediment and of course physical disturbance.
Statements regarding measures to protect UTS and other fishes during construction and other
disturbance to the aquatic habit should make it dear that fishes can be cleared from the stream
only over a very limited area (few hundred meters) at any one time, and can be hekl for only a
very short time (few hours at most). "Clearing" of an area should mean that the water has been Z (�
seined (net passed through) at least twice without catching a specimen before the area can be
considered "cleared". Also, during very warm weather conditions that often occur during the
UTS breeding season (Spring and Summer) special measures need to be used to protect the fry.
t '
Agna*" -Aft " Busiwss A*nbm wfaon " Erpewsip " Emaanwnw oaipn -Scene*
Sdnd of EAocubw " Cwdw for Hoepk ft MNtp maid
Uwnbscd The Cdit"" Stitt tk*nrsay
3-27-1998 4:07PM FROM BIOLQ3ICAL SCIENCES 1 909 869 4078
in some circumstances it may be impossible to clear an area of fry without killing large numbers
because as soon as you take them out of the water in the net to see if you have them, they die.
Also, it should be noted that the specific habitat, and especially breeding habitat, of the UTS is
along the edge of the stream, in areasof aquatic vegetation. This is precisely the place where
disturbance is taking place, where the habitat is obliterated due to the installation of bank
protection. Even ungroutted rip -rap does not allow the development of this habitat, and reduces
the development of meanders in the stream The development of curves and meanders in the
stream is not only important to the UTS, but there is scientific literature that shows it is very
important for the richness and diversity of the stream macroiavertebtates that form the food base
not only for the fishes, but also for many birds and other species. Narrowing, straightening and
hard -siding of the stream will destroy the biota You will end up with a "Los Angeles River', not
a "natural" river.
Much of the mitigation proposed relies upon revegatation and restoration. There is no reason to
believe that such measures wiD be effective. Riparian vegetation of the quality that may be
destroyed takes many decades or longer to develop to the point of supporting the fauna that now
depends upon it. Also, such mitigation projects are notorious for being washed out bathe fust big
flood. Natural riparian forest such as is found in some of the area proposed for disturbance
withstands such natural events when left undisturbed, and can be very effective in protecting
against erosion. Bank stabilization methods (such as 'Ajax System', not hard siding) are available
that allow the natural vegetation to remain and develop.
Hope these comments will &Dow you to more effectively protect the natural environment of the
Same Clara River system, while allowing resportsible development to move ahead.
Very truly yours,
athaa an, .D.
Professor, Biological Sciences
P. 3
21 -S
21-
Arrovo Southwestern Toad
Unarraonxl Threespined Stickleback
VOLUME I
Slender -homed Spineflower
INPUT TO THE RE-INITIATION OF
FORMAL CONSULTATION
A!
7R7 %__ I
Red -legged Frog
ON THE
TMC SOLEDAD CANYON
SAND AND
GRAVEL MINING PROJECT
City of Santa Clarita
July 30, 2001
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Least Bells Vireo California Gnatcatcher
4. THE CRITERIA FOR REINITIATION HAVE BEEN MET FOR
THREE SPECIES
It is the position of the City of Santa Clarita that the criteria for re-initiation of Formal
Consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been met for three
endangered species known to exist on the project site or in the project vicinity.
4.1 THE ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN TOAD
The Biological Opinion (BO) did not address potential impacts to the Arroyo
Southwestern Toad. Arroyo Toads have been located on-site and downstream. The
City has developed information presented in Chapters 1 to 3 of this report that shows
that TMC version of project hydrology is wrong and that project water use will
significantly impact the Arroyo Toad both on and off-site. As detailed in Chapter 3, the
City has also developed information that shows that TMC's Habitat Protection Plan
(HPP) won't protect the Arroyo Toad. The need for re-initiation of consultation to
address Arroyo Toad has been acknowledged by BLM. USFWS must, therefore,
address the potential for jeopardy to the Arroyo Toad within the action area and
consider reasonable and prudent alternatives and measures to protect the toad.
4.2 THE UNARMORED THREESPINED STICKLEBACK
The existing BO concluded there would be no taking. As detailed in Chapters 1 to 3 of
this report, the City of Santa Clarita has developed information that shows TMC's
version of project hydrology is inaccurate and that project water use will significantly
impact occupied Stickleback breeding and seasonal resident habitat both on-site and in
+� the "action area." The City has also developed information detailed in Chapter 3 that
shows the HPP for the project won't protect the Stickleback. Criterion #2 for re-initiation
of formal consultation (50 CFR 402.16(b)) has thus been met. The Stickleback issue
should be revisited in the new BO. USFWS should address the potential for jeopardy to
the Stickleback both on and off-site and consider reasonable and prudent alternatives
and measures.
4.3 THE SLENDER -HORNED SPINEFLOWER
The existing BO does not address potential impacts to the Spineflower. The project
approved in the Record of Decision (ROD) was the Reduced North Fines Storage
Alternative (RNFSA) version of the project. The California Department of Fish and
Game (F&G) has commented that this version of the project will result in an incidental
take of the Spineflower (see pages 6-7, F&G letter on ADEIR dated Nov. 8, 2000 as
quoted in Section 6.1.3 of this report) as a result of placement of fines in Bee Canyon
and airborne dust from mining. Specifically, F&G stated:
4-1 Re-initiation of Formal Consultation
Soledad Canyon Sand and Gravel Project
City Of
Santa Clarita
Carl Soyer arc
Mayor
,,It K:a;-C
,Mayor Pro- te-
Jo Anne Carz,
Councamemoer
Jan Herdt
Counc,lmember
,owaro 6uc McKean
Councilmemoer
27920 val.,naa BP.d
Style YC
Coy of .Santa C:anln
GaP!Crn-c
October 23, 1991
Colonel Charles S. Thomas
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
300 North Los Angeles Street
P.O. Boz 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
Attention: Ms. Elizabeth Varnhagen
Re: Request to Participate in Resolution of Notice of
Violation of Clean Water Act, Newhall Land and Farming Co.
Dear Colonel Thomas:
The City of Santa Clarita has reviewed the Corps' Notice of
Violation of the Clean Water Act to the Newhall Land and
Farming Company (NL&F) and considered this matter at the City
Council meeting of October 22, 1991. The City considers the
Santa Clara River and its tributaries (including Bouquet Creek)
to be highly important natural resources, and hereby requests
direct involvement and participation in any discussions
involving these areas. We commend the Corps for its diligence
in acting on existing Federal policy for wetlands and other
"Waters of the United States" and strongly support wetlands
protection. Violations of this nature are a serious affront to
the permit process administered by public regulatory agencies.
Numerous policies in the City's General Plan (adopted June
1991), as well as in our "Santa Clara River Water Features and
Recreation Study" (adopted March 1991) express the City's
interest in protection of the res-arce value of the River. It
is the City's unequivocal position that the Santa Clara River
and all its tributaries should be kept as natural as possible
and, in no event should concrete bottoms be constructed. We
seek a similar and consistent policy and practice from the
Corps.
The River and a portion of the Creek are contained within the
Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA 23)
identified by Los Angeles County. The Santa Clara River and
Bouquet Creek either directly provide or are contiguous with
habitat of two Federally Endangered Species, the Least Bell's
vireo and the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback. They carry
floodwaters and allow groundwater recharge. They have present
and future recreational value: Bouquet Creek, as well as the
Santa Clara River, is identified in both City and County plans
as a critical link in our regional trail system.
Channelization of any portion of the River and tributaries
seriously encumbers their ability to serve these diverse needs.
Both the City's General Plan and the Recreation and Water
Features Study for the Santa Clara River call for the Bouquet
Colonel Charles S. Thomas
October 23, 1991
page 2
..anyon ',C2Ck to n3': 3 So:t Channel. ..::' On of NL-,-
t)
:..t) constr.:ct a cJa.:rate-__.^.z� bo:c culverttram Bouqua
Hanlon Roar to Newhall Ra. Rc3d and.._; n. 1Ine2 coni: re `..-
trapezoidal channe_ from Newhall Ranch Road the :rain Rivet
channel, presents several szg::ificant impacts. The channz'
lining will substantially reduce the creek's ability t:
recharge groundwater supply, and will destroy (or has
destroyed) existing vegetation within the channel. Te
c'nannelization project will also effectively sever the regional
trail Linkage. Additionaily. t -e box culvert channel design
makes it extremely difficult to maintain 'he bicycle trai=
beneath the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and the Newhall Ranch Roa:
bridge.
NL&F's apparent disregard for the permitting requirements
imposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wild! if,
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are
serious. Penalties imposed should be substantial ani
?recedent-setting, so that beth NL&F and other companies face'_
with similar situations are more likely to comply with required
permitting procedures in the future. ;,. would also be
reasonable to provide incentives to encourage compliance.
The feasibility of redesigning the project to conform to the
Army Corps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department c_
Fish and Game requirements should be emphasized and explored.
If it is not feasible to redesign the project and construct it
so that it avoids impacts to the environment, significan-
mitigation should be exacted from Newhall Land and Farming.
This mitigation could take one or more of several forms.
1. A conservation easement for the Santa Clara River west cf
Bouquet Canyon Road to the I-5 Freeway, and south of
Bouquet Canyon Road on Bouquet Creek.
2. Donation of high quality habitat area to a public agency
to mitigate the loss of habitat caused by the
channelization project, as follows:
a. Land east of I-5 on the Santa Clara River adjacent to
Magic Mountain Parkway, near the old railroad trestle.
b. Land at the confluence of the Santa Clara River and the
south fork of the Santa Clara River.
C. A portion of the NL&F 'panhandle' area, east of Bouquet
Canyon Road.
3. Easements for a multi -use trail to restore the connection
of the Bouquet Canyon trail to the Santa Clara River
east -west trail, and construction of ramps to pass under
Newhall Ranch Road and Bouquet Canyon Road.
Colonel Charles S. Thomas
October 23, 199_
Page 3
A cast: _.,ntribution to
envlronn2^._a1 education
school cn__l ren related
Santa Clara River.
3 F- i,. agency to estab115:: an
Dram f'r 1JCaI elementary
:.ab:.at _: ntay.ed in the
5. Construction of a percolation basin. on Newhall Land and
Farming property outside of the high water area for the
Santa Clara :River.
6. Donation or preservation of other valua--le open space/
ecological resource lands such as Significant Ecological
Area 64, the Valley Oak Savannah located vest of
Interstate 5. -
Again, the Corps continued d_14gence in matters involving our
wetland areas is greatly appreciated. This is a matter of
utmost importance to the City of Santa Clarita. As the local
agency most closely affected, we request full involvement and
participation in these decisions.
Sincerely,
Carl Boyer, Mayor
City of Santa Clarita
CE: CMK:621
CC: The Honorable Carlos Moorhead, Member of Congress
The Honorable William Thomas, Member of Congress
The Honorable Elton Gallegly, Member of Congress
The Honorable Alan Cranston, Member of the Senate
The Honorable John Seymour, Member of the Senate
The Honorable Ed Davis, Member of the Senate
The Honorable Newt Russell, Member of the Senate
The Honorable Phil Wyman, Member of the Assembly
The Honorable Cathie Wright, Member of the Assembly
The Honorable Paula Boland, Member of the Assembly
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
James Hartl, Los Angeles County Regional Planning
Santa Clarita Civic Association
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment
Carl Blum, Los Angeles County Public Works
Cat Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Paul Edelman, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Larry Sitton, California Department of Fish and Game
Frederick J. Gientke, United Water Conservation District
John Hanlon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Peg/Henderson, Rivers & Trails Conservation Assistance
Frank Hovore, Placerita Canyon Nature Center
Bill Manetta, Upper Santa Clara River Water Committee
James McCarthy, Los Angeles County Parks and Recreation
L C
t �
` S
-- 3�T, ai C CaL.
E
_--
_
r�,
-a M L iG
r�,
blcnoranduru
To: DRAFT
May h 6, 2000
Frons. Field Supervisor, Vcnnrra Fi..h and Wiidlife Office, Ventura, Caiif),Iiia
Subjcz:r; Operation. of NOisemacing Deviccr oil tt c Santa Clara live by the Valencia
Corxparuy, Sartre (]alta, Los A.rtgeies County, Celifoirua
On Ivioy l 5, 10W, Rick Farris of my s•.aff received two phone calls from members of the public
reWrting the operation ofnoisern.akiog devices along portions of the S:mta Clara River at its
junction with San Franci,vquito Creel; (a major tributary). Similar curcerrs wc:c posted on a
local "list t:ver" culled CA,LBIRD (a sample poslin; is araclred). Tae area in question is
owned erid being dcvelOper by the Valencia Company, a division of Xcwha", Lct d and r arming.
The s�rea'zls support good Starids of v IUI)w rips ian forest that has historical:y lien g
ed as Bestin
habitit for the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bells f:aso' us), and which is used by couthwokL.tt willow
flycaucdcr (En pfdonox tradlir csrbnua) and westem vellow-billed cuckoo (C'oceyzus amaricanur
ocCitienra!u)- The pr- lienee e2 these species wAs repolled by Dr. Dan Guthrie who has
o)uducred bird wrveys in the area for th
xsuls below), e last 1() y,:ars (Battler detail cn Ur. Guthric's survey
Because orte of the CALBIRD postings stated that the U,S. Army- Corps of Engineers (Corps)
ha; "required" the noisemakers to prevent the mortality of least Bell's vireos during construction,
wt con*r-cted Bruce Heude son of the Corps' v;nt-u a office. T•he projects being curtstructed
whe a *! a noisemakers am Int Wert covered under a programnatic biologi _alicor`ertmce op riot
(BO) No.] •5-93-i•!C-Ci i;sue,l by the Ventura Fib and Wildlife Office ur, 1998. Thc BO does
not cover the use of such devices, nor did the Cors add any mcas-ares to its pe-, mit that uimd
the us of noisemakers. 1•he BO does state the folowing: req
"in the event that a listed (bird) species is observed in the habitats to be removed
Or in other habitats within 300 feet of the construction work •.seas, the Valercia
Company has the option of delavizig all construction work in the suitable habitat
or within 300 feet of the suitable habitat until after September 1 st, r: C-0ntiniling
the surveys to locate any nests. If an active ner� is found, cl.a ring and
construction within 300 feet of the nest shall be postpones; until the nest >r vacated
aadjusenlles have i edged, and when there is no evidence of a second attcxrtpt at
-sting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field
witht} Y and stales or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be
instru :ed or, the ecological sensitivity of the area,'
Od May 16, Rick and Bruce went to this am to observe the nuisemak-= &mthand. While the
�:0
devices were not t7sible at first,tile sounds wen; a 2
yards. UPon fw:,her investigatioa. and while rcrnahlin nt from a dostance of approximately 20(7
eyprcxiznxtc!y 20 of the noisctnake 5 attd g m Public areas, they observed
devices the attached tn_p she vs the , y}2 xim3ta area baerc tht the e
"Ozt luers }ore set. The
tunT, t Bcll'll, • nd timbre of du so aad Produced is such that it seems to rtLuruc ,}te qualities of
the lust Scll's vor.o sone. )whether or not this is intentional is unknown. In their estimation,
the vclyue repetition, and quruitics of the noise produced are such that least
raaey other species vrould be prc:rludsd from nevting alonBell's vireos and
g portior s of Borate Clara lover and
San Francoquito Creek in otherwise suitable habitat.
Rick cnlied Dan C'u-,iuie. to ask about the results of recent surveys in the area where the
noisemakers have been installed. Dr_ Guthrie stated that he had surveyed the area from 1988
tbrvurh 1998: and that least Bell's vireos last nested in the area in 1992. A flood removed much
oftpe haaitat the following year, and it has recovered to it current st to which appears to be
suitable fitr nesting again. Ur. Guthrie also said that Valencia ComPatry had been using the
noisemakers for five years, as welt as owl decoys, to discourage ne,•rirtg
perfohoted in The area last year (i 999) . Surveys were
by Dr. Kimball Garrett of the t os Angcl,s County
Museum of Natural l-listory. syr Crsrrtt stated that his
location where the noise,n surveys were conducted upstzrarn of the
i erg v.:re installed, but he recalled hearing them.
We have several concerns;
1 • Wbct-thr,T or not Dr. Guthr"e has observed least Bell's vireos nesting is Uzc arra the fact
a
rcmaons that it is historical habitat, it is suitable for nesting, and it is within the area
ignntcd as critical habitat.(NEED TU CHECK)
2. If least Bell's vireos -were i -t tee area attempting to nest, it is likely they would have been
havepr�cbeen
from doing r a t the Heise genctated by the devices. No least Bell's vireos
have been seen Itr the azea this year,
3. If ]east BeL's vireos were observed or are nesting in the area, according to biological
opinion 1-8-99-F/C-61, construction would have to cease for a dist'tttea of 30p feet frog,
the observation location or the nest.
4. The Valencia Company has misinterpreted the intent of the biological opinion. We
believe they hAye concluded that if tbey keep least Bell's vireos away from the
construction zones by using noisemakers, they can avoid construction delays. Also, the}:
may bclicvc that if they prevent direct mortality by -carting the birds away, then will be
no section 9 violation.
5• The intent of the devices is clearly to prevent or discourdge nesting by least Bell's vireos
Company.
and other laird species in fltztherancleof the development of the area by the Valencia
the use of noisen'Aets is ni-t coverall by any permits or biologiaai opinions.
ub-If (M 9'EI, I. 5C F.,:: 2:O34gy7d2 Pabak saflcy
act o` r_cisem_kers certainly vieiatey the i, -,tent of the 20, but i;ie 90 ❑id (/
Dior ac 7Urisdictione'ro `th decis�ef� t exem�.t certain activities outride of
`•`1r om the 9C4
conditions In:luee implen,e:alnr . =cnditicns (the 404 pe rrut
tho Cor s t he HD)• I think we ••On_d have to notify
F that we consider ti,a a violation of tr;e 80 ar.d insist
,ontetn!y .uspend the PerMit +ntii ecnaultut_on is reinitiated. grace ma
rd that Fen it sus ens_cn Will not. affect the activities outside of
-:tit jirisdicti on r y
°c, as you point O'It' t?i tvaren cis all ll, te construction is Covered de the
see What Brace says. wouldhave to G•cP working.L__ e-,
s
f have called FisI end Name t-ioe and received no ree onse, 9 1
Scott
a local watchdog, ani, she cells the that Fish andp7ame (Y.artin Wall sand
Scott Barris) '°'id her =hat they ordered Valencia Ce. to irstail the
noiser,.ai:ars_ Margan'+ehtie (_.-FG) Bays tha- a aCO.
qct scr:eoq from CDFG nn the phone today, 'Y• 1 will try to
Rick
La°:r anoe
YeCalt• )arr_ratcn
n; 7WO/R1/EWS/COI,
0S/2�i2000
08:42 At4
Ncisez'akers
To! Catherine
Liant NCda/VFW:/Ri/FWS/L,Ji, R1ok
arris/VFW0/R2/FFWS/Dol
CC:
Subject: Re; Santa Clarita
Rink..., thanks for the Update, tut as usual, T'x ean'u�ed. Even i,
the noise ata kers are Iona" in 5Ln area outside Corp ;creta iE eon, it
t-leso;rds as if their Presence and use violate our E0. I?, es a result,
directly
corp of justi:ied in scspeading t:,cir ;+ermie, wYi If it say qct
di tectly Effect the noise makers, would it not effect other aspects Of
their project and create an incentive to Comply
with the terms of tha
ao>
Were YOU able to determine h:w/why CFG was able to atop the use �f the
noise mikers?
Let me )u'OW what you _find or. I'm still waiting for council Or, the
I;Aue of
privateVely °reventinq listed species from occupying .nd/or
P r_r"Par_y....Larry
Reply Separator
Suhjtet. San+_ C'ar to Noises•,
Author: R' aKers
ic.i a .arris di ?"d$
bate: 05/24/20OU 3:48 PM
Hello,
012
Druce Hendoraon
<bbndnonawcsLnet
>
C5/17;7000 rrt:M ARA
s),ZO
To: :albiro',akW net
cc:
Subject: Santa Carta Noisemaker;.
Regarding the noise:ttdkers in Santa Clarita at the :onfluence of San
FC9Lcifauito Cree's and thG Santa 'larS Fiver, pan Gut,
:rlc wrote:
>>> The ;;Dina makers are a recfiiremtr.t ry t:+e corks of engineers to keep
blras Ircm restdng neer a projaC: and, sopposedly, 7ct'cr.G ::'�; The
taore ,1.- "in7eat al t:,�:. he'_pfu.11 and Vent_ra Fish s._ Wi y are
tryto Y "d _ itiize wa: goiaa to
get .hem s: Cpred, but I doubt rhe will be - -_._'
ga.ervrent agGrciws at Dada a[.cut prozocvl. !i. - two
Th_s iu not oorzect. They are NOT a cordition of any perm- iss�led b
CC --Ts ai=ngineers, The cn.l Y the
Y permr t that might apply Jr -niS PCrtion of tna
Santa Clarity area wss the Subject of an EZVEiR jointly prepared pursuv:t
to NEPA a:'d CECA by t`e Corps and Cp5'G ahoy_ a year and a hzif ago. _•he
Project being conducted to the northcz3z of t;,e confluence i5 out Sides of
Corps and CJcG uriSClctio' „ e "
7 .., therr.<._i, is net sub,t ?^ t; regulation by
titter ageaay• IkSan :nth, r.e_tl.er ay.ncy has any permit c^nditi_nt that a?ply
to this Project and tr.e5c noisemakers were placed withvr these krow.'_edge cr h�aSs:ncs. rurthexmo_•e, t•ta US ris: and Wil aget:cies'
not aware oL them until the past day or so. �-fe 3etvice was
Tuwento m
t of thearea today to see the situation first hard a::d fcund quite a
(estivate about 3,": or so, all told] 5oattereei tn_ovy;tout the
riparian vegetaticn or. the river, and others that bordered the construction
sire. The noisemakers edited a Bound that was vaguely re:n.ir,iecrrt of :3V
song iri its tonality, the fact that it had a dry "rattloy" quel: Ly LU it,
and becuze the cmittrr3 would tempozarily cease their brnadczs[ only to
ras'—za again r, S-iu ,¢., •,rids, ,al sntcewnat ;imil ar to your typica. mala LH,.
Tie navitat was saturated with these scunds of
appeAred to be only one , ono, "giant czcadas." There
P p to exclude or otherwise in t•e_`are with OY
occurrence in tee v_cinity of the censtructicn project. su_crssfu:, nr,a
could only presaate reproduction would also be afiectrd.
-his bzirgs to bear a question to ponjer: provided that tae e-%;t.ters
Prcch ce a sound that is somewhat akin to the (very) general se-:ndc rade by
Your rypGoul LBV aongater, where did the conacructicn fo!i;s get it in their
heads that this was a good idea." 10r -'ver, where olid they cv:e ecress the
:nf armat-on _hat this particular sound, hrxsdcast at such a high :,c1unG `rwt
�o many emitters Srattwred throng^hoc[ ill 0£ tbQ habitat pota,_1511y
uLili Zed by SS"v, would be >pprapriate for their purpose'• I ca:, o:17 zu_Tzise
they got thins ybfor;aation from sorecne Familiar with LHS'.
F._ ;ards,
9ruce RAnderson
Camarillo, CA
sFU li.S3 F--7.
!315y'9: Babali Naflc;' Ic;
17c\ z3
Diane Noaa Ta: Rack Fael�Jv'FY/OrP1'FW&DOI,^�F��r
05n4r2000 06:63 PM Cathedra MctaWxWFV/OIRi FV.'S/D0.&RY, Lawrence
Femnglonc"
Subject: Rs; Santa Clarila NOlsemekerse
Fran Dave Perak st't, rneessage, it sounds like Fis`i and Game has taken care cf fie n6tsdrrakar eiwatcn.
P,;ck Fcrru
Rick Fame To: Catherine McCa1vinATVVCR1ff A'3r00,9FFY9, Ulene
05/'id1200L) 93:46 rM NodwVF1h7R11FWS1D0:CFWS. l ew.ence FamrglenZ,Fln5
ac:
Subject: Notsemakers
Hello,
Per Larry Farrington# suggestion, I ailed Bruce Honde^son at the Corps. I asked If it wss pussible that
the Corps could pulp Va;encia Co.'s 404 permit In light of the new activity that the toisernskers cant"cute.
Accoming to Bruce, the 404 permit stays that tf ValirhGe co. is wvrking M areas outside orale Corps'
jvrisdicton. they (Valenta Co.) wou10 contact the Corps k get their agreement flhe Corps agreed the
act -vibes woad W outside a Its jurisd.cton, the Valencia Ce. rould proceed withon worrymg at»u1 dher
404 pemiil conditions.
This is Ir,: case in the area Brute anal I visited last week where the no;seriakers ate iooaad.
� sequently, as Bruce points out, wen if tie Corps did suspand to 404 permit It would not affect the
acpvitezi near where the no(Wr okcrs wars opetati-iig.
Hr.wevar, the BO and the NalLral Rivers Manauymert Plan (NRMP) were wrI ten with the clear intention
of avoiding impacts to least P.:irs vireos adjaoent to the oonstVdion. That's why the SC says that the
developer will use bio!o.qical monitors tc find out it vireos ai. present in hab tat acjacent to active
deveiopment and if so, Valence Co. mil suspend all acttvdso within 300 feat or Ine obse•vaaon sndbr
the nest Ne 'nor document says t7at tills would only be within. tie Corps' area cfjurisdiction, In !act, the
ir,tant of tra BC s and NRMP was to avoid conlltruetlor impacts ;firough moni onng, not harassment. We
should remind then- that each a�bvk`es may corstime take, and that they would need a 10 permit
to enntinde
\
t
;edlk}
V/kE L oY
VOLUME I - REPORT TEXT
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
PERENNIAL YIELD
and
ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE POTENTIAL
of the
ALLUVIAL SEDIMENTS
In the
SANTA CLARITA RIVER VALLEY
of
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
UPPER SANTA CLARA WATER COMMITTEE
MEMBERS: LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS
DISTRICT NO. 36 - VAL VERDE
NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SANTA CLARITA WATER COMPANY
VALENCIA WATER COMPANY
AFFILIATE: CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY
DECEMBER 1986
RCS
RICHARD C. SLADE
CONSULTING GROUNDWATER GEOLOGIST
S8605 - Qal Report
v
88
their annual extractions are not metered. Because the cumula-
tive total production by these private pumpers is not consid-
ered to be large, it has not been included in our perennial
yield assessment.
Prior to 1954, alluvial groundwater production ac-
counted for almost 300 percent of the total water production
in the study area. However, in 1954, this percentage de-
creased to approximately 95 percent because in that year
Newhall County Water District constructed the first of six
wells which tap the Saugus Formation for domestic use. By
1985, production from the Saugus Formation approached 16 per-
cent of total groundwater extractions (refer also to Table 2).
In recent years, there have been several shifts in the
supply/demand usage of water in the region. Groundwater ex-
tractions from the Saugus Formation have gradually increased
to about 15 percent of the total local production, while total
extractions (alluvium plus Saugus Formation) have declined
slightly. Water usage has shifted toward a greater proportion
for urban uses, with a reduction for agricultural uses, as the
region has become urbanized. In the future, it is projected
that local alluvium production will remain relatively constant
with more water going to urban uses as the agriculture is
phased out, and there will be greater use of groundwater from
the Saugus Formation.
Urbanization has had a rather startling impact on the
availability of areas for recharge, however. All recharge to
the aquifer system does not occur in the low -flow channels of
the river and its tributaries, but infiltrates over much of
the alluviated areas which are not within the flood channels
of the Santa Clara River system. Paving of these areas has,
and will continue to reduce the net effective area for natural
recharge to the underlying groundwater system.
i,n,dieG ar,d �icntlrmen or be Commission.
r Dan C holland, i ant a hioiugist speciai,zing to *he ccolugy of native
VIv na^tr is D
fishes; amphiuians znd ceptiles, with which T raise apprvximateiv ?5 ytars Of jai
portion or
experience in s ,uthern and central California. Additionally. I _atiesaoyo, c uc Bcause o e
last fixe gears nndacting resear.h on one s eci:s in particularProblems
with the tiewhall Ranch
tune limaatio:%s. T will discuss only' a few of the inarty n
Pteject!sj ;r. regard to t?us species. A detailed listing and descrtpuon of these prc,h{ tris would
minirpo,y require several hours, if not days.
First, a, you arc aware, the species T>as recently been doc>f he -1e cieesifor ftvariety
project area. Some previous surveys failed to document e presenceina > ri�teKtin-cy techniques
of reasons including but not limited to inadequate survey pert P
:r:d a clearly demonstrated (via published rg sorts) significant misunderstanding and/or
tii;representalion of the habitat and ecology' of the species. It is my professional opinion
based upon several years of both survey and research experieace with he arroyo toad and
my recent examinations of the habitat in the projeet area, that additional surveys by
competent and impartial observers, would by highly likely to locate additional arroyo toads
in other areas within the project boundaries.
second, ex Sting dceumentation in the form of environmental impact reports and
assut lour d unatsnas clearly fail to consider the likely impacts of the proposed developments to
the arro;o toad. In particular, the extent of and the methods for the proposed bank
stabilization efforts are highly likely to result in direct mortality to toads during this
process, both short- and long-term alteration and degradation of the riverbank and
adjacent habitnts, and a variety of direct and incidental negative impacts to the toad and
other listed or sensitive species.
Third, what we have knot%",for 21 !Wt three year. 's that atroyn tcds occur in a variety
of upland habitats - including disrarbed areas and urban"wildiand interfaces • to a distance in
excess of I km (?"-`Sd.) from the edge of the upland!riparian ;nterface This means that not
only will proposed aiteration and destruction of habitat within riparisa areas negatively
affect toads, existing and planned development within adjacent upland areas will also (for a
variety of reasons) inevltab)y negatively affect the species
The pyely nee of this species in the project area efTmliveiy invalidates of severely
c mpromisesthe existing environmental impact documentation and dilalyws on these projects,
specifically and in large part the NPJViP. Contrary to the assertions of Newhall and the Corps of
Engineers, this document dots not address many critical issues related to arroyo toads and other
species, and proposed "mitigation" measures wili likely contribute dtrWIN to additional take of
the species and further degradation of its habitat. As such, I snongh suggest that you reject the
existing submittals in this regard and require the preparation, submission and critical peer and
public review of compl`te new environmental impact reports !or both individual projects and
curnu)ative effects of same. Thank you.
AA , P.
DOT-iG-_:)00 -6E ;.39 �--'M FR-: lG. r, _
NI2rl.0 LnnIier
United States Department of thl Irteror
FISH AND WIi_LDLII li' EFP VICE
ti;nvhall Lard a d ?arm:::;; Company
2382_ vller.ci:•. Boulevard
v�llc:ra,'Califomia 91355
De,z %fs. Lauffer-
}-tober j, :0(,10
This is in ospoas,_ to your letter r0 tLC Dally NTP.tis, cul )list don. Sunday,
September L' -1-Ov, concerning the 3ird-X dc'+ices used b; i:ewhall and arc! Fatininia to
",ird Wrists dcvoloping once a cOnsti'detion project naj be: Ua." you Corte d III -L
t e duv4 0;. were "fully cppreved by all a_'encics," and'.:.at Ne'maa:l had potter, verbal apprn: z:
from Qlc U.� �^ and'�trildlife Servic:, fer GteLr Luo.
Your m that the .devices were approved by the Set -vice is incorrect. %ti e ea,e no rC:er of
QI'✓'n^'ve ibr lir writien aiproval for the Bir_ X devices, ncr Lias Nev, hall beer, aNe to DIcvide
aRy dOC'... �-.971i.af70P. i}1L'' b'C71 (;CS yU:r StiL'CL^.ellt.
In a d on, a e w:_nt to clarity our posicoa on the use of the Biid-N: 14w ccs V,,c cc not appr�vc
of their ase to dlicOAfa':C Jirds from nesting, and eerta:r_.y not in ;_1 air:, Aicra mdaflECred
speci s, SL:Ch as the least Bell's �t*eo and th, so.:tltwestelIl ll'IIIO'✓ :: 13: 11e:, cc-ur t:nd %vh,,r
cn-ica_ habitat na: been des,.,-tated. You are correct in str:t'i^.= that no cbanzes under the
nnd.n,ered Species AcC o 1 73 are pending. LIS Was conecdl :CFO -?cd -:ar, 1 eaihzi issue of
flit J 'y''News; we are examir-iitg the legal nmif:canor cf `:ewhali's usz of the
devices is the absence a'proper pertrtits or consult don pur3uaat is -ne a;dargered Species Act.
Sincae;v.
Diane K. Noda
Fieid S::per isor
� !: w w c : s: __-Cl : c
±RD SURVEYSALONGA PORTION 0 THE
SANTA CElk P,'VER: , ITS Int 4,mS
UPSTREAM FRGM THF CASTAIC CREEK CONFLUENCE.
I A2VA r xci CALIFORNIA, I
¥.Qr z
2az
.v=Ca- R2!
« w e<s.
maw »ate ,emr
,2waEAwe
cm=� RS!
c 9 & o:
e.arel.
2t1
B'rd Sur\L•s along a Ionic" OF the Sona Cort Rh er Cpstrcam Anna
il1P (';1$I1!C l 1.°C�i COtl nitCYtCr. Gc9r L:i:en Ga. Cnill�.:'nl :, tC"
\V?vT '�G�n �C:C'CE �erdcr
Nature and scope orSumeys
Dunng the Sj.i'ing ant elf SuOnvc' Of 19?9 S0 S "try "'C" j'OL_ !2K
, ' cf Me
Jun, Cara R: —.- ,.::'. r- Its tr!butariet nczr V-,:encC a-' i:::i mi— tF;!?'Jfe . 1 Sur. . . _,_ FCBLsed
Cti �2:e.�^'7::-:$.-_t.,.e cr 3�senze..fYKGn-bled l, --'.<.,r V UPS+:.=: 70
Sou,hoes _ t ATIve cach , and 'iJ 4 e1 T ` TV and }t l Ile Ser—'l;'- C n IC
13'ter too i1scie,. \.,Ir,_cr. Of a.l speco Dbserved',\e-o n_tee. and; in :ddii Crn r- :c e 'h:ee
t,. -r �1_.a � S C,... . �
sOL0:e5 f:C 'd 81:C'; 2, °i"'C:..� :C: d.^.i.. \v15 �.a.-_ ,. ._,.. _ _CC::E „ ..i;Uea1 .." 3..
endan erea.:r 0 C 'd. C_n L' -, +. J: 0:1 Sr- , -heat-ECJ\'-r.:ds.
Etc Sur. el w s cxeuCed on tc0:. by Useneri' :ii no ..;n0d nit' QuL , E.dit Cry an"
De::3`.'loral Cha.:{] edglas ui south Crn Cai:forr➢'d eyes Kne; routes Fere des:_r^'_ tc CD':er -1
areas of tach sec:: . c :._ r, ,pith em_-asi ^A3ced an •At!Ia \abit—S A er u=1 l 9e{1';
Vir:os and other sets :. • r ,:.r';a spcoies are rncst lAd occ_urAli sur.&l AMU& cP...\ een
7C aGC 1010 a m it focus bpeee5 i� 2a7A':-d:�iLd u:.f_1. i.e3Si Bt!"V:SOC. _._
Ceutf.'aea@rn :' .0w hh'C.. her .. • ...-C not '::9ua!'.)- cbse7vae, .apes Ol ihor ca> n era payed :..
a : S <rson i E =.l SLr .. ere Daniel A cwt '.e _rd Jut!"
aP 3i22'-'r'I CLCho! J:.1 p' ��
Sagden. Not A _ lnc. ]e: Fea .-. Q! ,.r._',`:' ��.� � ...ee?err.�t L-riie: TW WTTJ-:,
issued under se:a'en TopiXA; W Me Enc r0.ed S =*3
To WNW curls and obscou :he -ovirage L:ideli :CS for fCCu£ Sp -'Cies . t.. a79a was
raided into e:g^t s2C6w Mac 1, De.i,'.e_i'.Cn Ot t„e Eight areas ane eornmen-.s on each
.CDo\V. $lir::`-s 02 S�7C :�: i7I CRr £eCt;Jnr Of th2'.er S}'$:CID?rL3i-,b-'J,':^rc _..nducte''
twice ducng Te nesung :_ason ci.'i SCr�e” S Was Con. LSe:d m June io m3u;e :�31 .ai2 arm i
S,,k, such as Yelc':4--h ld Cuckoo and Voltow Matcher wood nc: be rn:s:.'-. S.-Inlys Df
be mma,g ;NAWS oF=a SamaClKa Rher W; 10:\ wayonducmd anording IO the
least BeWs %jeo pmawa outlined 'a_d the Fish an- Seance (Apper.dr' : ! and ecns:stc?
of surveys, two etc April. DTsy, J.tne and Jut. Sar.eys:n late May aac d June
.`glowed Fisc and �%' idLife Sen i -e promciol e r 50uih\ceS.e^1 WillowFlycatcFer
:n : itste-C has rna:k. eG IlA waS dry"'.l.h Of in;s b iV=0
haVe be—, C�<:n toe the .a Gr Ax join ;to t 1"'. .�.. King$( sc.9" 1S VIII'.>l)IC habitatCL
rs 3�c and ick : ;ennar,.at v:a:e:
Are n 6. Sall Prnncisc,tutu Creei;- giant.; C:nr.1 River up.strea;a 2.5 mile;.
Le! ='Y, of ser,;:,+', : dies cn; most of&2 -=;'lc^ :he riparaa zone .,nsst o`a Ova,
sande c'nanne:. C•lnce bcrrierta }^; zMal Me :Cr.- h 'c: a:. ^ne than is r,o., brd_reji :,'
deseLped arcus. Ir the ur oer uu; of t`_ s _ec-icn, ho:; .ver, coa;;a! :ace >cr..b plans still o_cu
n;thin the channG, as GO 'nk :ns a Fdn ilia. am cd13-.4 anuStA flcky of coif cnw Ocds.
+_ondlci and tam>risF: are O:.mnlon 3:0!7 `.IbS SGC"i,n a!C�r g tre stream c.-tannel. A S rg!e %,e'. %.ea
'•;1505 ".ea: p,yvc, r,c%rr lsvon lots .1 :Iii' upper :i-...;,'• of :it.'S steam, Wille!. •::3s dry dun.
Si:"ve'i S. but VG'.tieC some cCeCiS of :1., P,£. _r 'r .._ Pr[Il.- ane ,Jwc: ''_ rnilE C° va,
F:a7CiS.qUjtc l,�,reaL P wet toe to c .- £r Jr, mInces dnOpmcm C,7. n uabn ankitJ a'.
(!CI_ -,.,alters to scan. aNay OW AM pre '1 for; t-. v._ _c 1_ OY&_-------------- re0d ani
rosUked tn;OK e' J.$e N.., nS QF \SC. :H2•. ?-jp. l`J
V
Area i. South Fork Of the San.:,, Cl.,rn Rive:: tilcEean Pa6way to 'ala^ic Mouutnin
Parkway (Route '26).
Length o'> -..,_n, !.0 miles. T h _hu:, ei aic` 12 V15 3ection Cf the SC.Ltn FC', IS na.TO•a' and
SEN ssnd'' A'A)-J.: TOB: ct this 'ec'icz "3GGL 1s restr:cttG to a na"ow tand of tip`,' wcodiand
SRC «- each iiCt of tCC :4, -lie! 3Pd 3 °e'•v p -,:kers cf, ;2t vc'2e;3t,Cn 5t:ppGC2i' Sy'r'!11_ff it zrn
aa.a7 en(. e-,v,:_^e72:. i:cc: ma ?i Ct; '.kith :... '.-na:n channel of ;.'1t Sar::3 C! -a P, -r a
more extensr:e are.=. `r'voodlano e:,cE:_ a t:`.=';c,.;, =ire -z :his vection
Area S. South fork of the Santa Darn Raver, Route 126 upstream to NeNshall Creek
Length efseccCa, 1 a WAS 70 "'Pe "r _-aist; 3Fa wide 5an9y than -el
in -! cncmut r.., cvs =ned eat., sane ms. nme-t and flood damage The
ter3ec:ea c e'..:
ri': x is entirely `C00ed tv deVV en 'Was opt contain., sn,dl! is'.ands o£d: y riparian vegetation
and some .vet riparian areas .`ore: - b} runeffiron' ci:l.er:s alor, ; tre silos of ti e creek, !,0
flooding nay JLc1r(CG on 01:5 3e l• on : :he river :n rr. :r.•. years and riparian, veyetaticri arOL•.-.e
this -adverts continues tc do Elc � ' �+� ` {rir.:o Isis of coaonwood and i!iotiv
woe j'and. Dit res d,, was :he-entinned increase in ; i.':^an species along th s Section of the aver.
Coromeuts sn Threalened and Fndangercd Speefas
YMow-billed CUekoJ
T' -le Yellow-bd'ea xkoc is lin cc as a State —B^dan¢ered Species Despite pla;ina taped tails
NMI
E
=r tU. :
Area 3. Santa Clara R, ,'er ,NI(Jlri:i PnTk,.ac to Ecugtirt r'tcyon Road.
F
a
h.All,
Lerh I ci C CI:?d i JC 1 iSirs.dlCr O.,Ir3,
Can YOn 60" 1 w7owus IC I:J$ aecr,w Cr K _374 Chra Wvv y, sinjn 3 :l,... y, �
VIEW ^r J. 'water P SOVA0 from rr:,,',co i 120 t. L I n &%aUer :n'❑ rim 6
199703 rernowcu all n?r QaKIn %e,pMjN0 is =m INS SUAW . o
•h n �r :d i c � ac, „ 1 rte
i^_ct'.c.n5 or JOr-G-?Ae ds ri71 . d as obdir;w _Cr deMpampr ,07 -J Q TtPahan.14n. I
tid;i9tt _C^2 of -a- s
t:1 a
:;1 t,.. noon sid=. __: he ricer r.a:,r Mean P3rkw9y. ;o sdr:x islands
of ungeraMn :rlm the r Tr chary d, .and z more estei '
••e `rc`I nc9r The it;;l ' '.: Jn fie
scu;h side.
oUlfaP a zI:IC � r!•re$t :.^. !hz mo'.tl: of Be_inuz' Can}nn I; e,,,_ e l;' an ex.arsi,:'z : `c -
'c cchans :nd'.,il.owv _, urstrea- from: the
rid^•
Noluma1Cer_-ion_''•'
C`n5ll 5eS 1^ SCare •)11ds dV :t -.O n L'J' , :. r l SIS s.715 CU' j jn`a'�2 iID'1 r FC ^Ut?'. ti er L",
e _ fne,.a Bridge
_�
aJ"ns N,%:, a.'.d 1t. re. z Ia' Aa[ ean Id"e cnmaad a _20ny c F Red
,c:ngej 30MG, araC c0e,• :a.'2', ryarian :7eL a'IGwS 3rd C'ai< ?;L c t
nested Ur. -or -.he McE_an Bridge.
Area 4. Santa Clara River. Bouquet Canyon Road upstream to DR'P transmission lines.
Length of soca r., 2.3 •les The river Mann& in tis sectoa
_ rs'hts. ofa c.ua• , fat; dry
',rd511 Wit!1 ❑arri:'.'i marc: -:� Gf G.,. Cl"3Tial: 'h CJ.J3D� , W ' - _ _
r "� 'hannel are areas �-_eco _ale
sc ub'^, 'coat Th.< 5e.00 • CFAe 5a ra C'a-.
a ., r n r'Is; :;s, s has been net •.r..; o•;cfly ducng
sarin= min, and due to H� .er release from p.tn:r;s one mi!e c sura7m 1Torn Eocauet Canpon
Road This year Jere was nwer Wwirg cer.Iir ucusiv in :... SLc_io of the racer criy dIzirg :he
&V SPA By ;he One Wths _wsus. waver wasresent in rhe sn;all
n
F secl:.Jo. mor. ri7c
�Os
f!o•r. about i mile upstre_° n Mor, Ve Bouquet Car.vcr Bricom. ,Foa,aver, remnrn: cattails or•.
ear' er spam Sow providec habitat for some "et Apahan species such as Rec-w:rSecJ Biacl'bi'ds
and Seng Spm zas. A `'vr..,.-ta0d Kite re; ed n :he .ar2e c::vrrnoCds or.:::c nc ,h <_id: of•the
rig Iw-, .pstrezrl `,Tj.-n Cann,,cn Bnd_o
Area 5. Castaic Creek: Route 126 to Old Road next to Interstate 5.
'_.er;th of st•,;Jon, 13 'riles Watei was rc:eascd from uFsireara dams dwia� most )f the
study 7er:od b::t r Ot :J noir':.v u5l t' ExcFp4 Or pcci::Srs OI wet egC;a (10n iCrT:1Cd nen- ll":_23t:Cn
rmuf cha4n%!s, and a sec -ion Gf Cti'iilnl;vU3 .lu�v near the 1111dic of this section, the creek i\'2s
Iry ❑ L:C,, of t• is sping CCns:r'1C:ion Occurr^j or 3 oew rczc', Cr.^iS; 1Lg' and bridq° cn i'1s sec -,i --r
e: Cas,
aic Creek and deve'cpmen: durirg I gig remo ed most of the coastal sage and ruder3i
s'egetation:ha: once borlered both sides of the ripanan zone, Ci-inaiing some coasta: sage
species thac visited this area in earlier years. S,.vallo xs rested again under the bridge across
Route 7=6 and Began nesting under t'r.o,. new bridge during Ju!v. The extensive willow Forest cn
C