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

Friends of the Santa Clara River

660 Randy Drive Newbury Park, California 91320 (805) 498 4323

3875-A Telegraph Road #423, Ventura, California 93003 Phone (805) 658-1120 Fax (805) 258-5135 www.wishtoyo.org

2-18-12 Executive Office Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 500 W. Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Agenda Item 19, 20 and 21- Findings and Conditions PROJECT NUMBER 00-196-(5),VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 53108-(5),

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 00-196-(5), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2005-00112-(5), OAK TREE PERMIT NUMBER 00-196-(5) and all other associated permits including Flood Map changes and the General Plan Amendment Honorable Supervisors: The proposed Landmark Village project consists of the following discretionary project approvals: (a) General Plan Amendment PA 00-196, Sub- Plan Amendment LP 00-197, and Specific Plan Amendment SP 00- 198; (b) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53108; (c) Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) RCUP 200500112 for project-level development within the Specific Plans River Corridor Special Management Area (SMA)/ SEA 23 boundaries; (d) Oak Tree Permit OTP 00196; (e) Off- Site Soil Transport Approval (part of CUP 00196 entitlement request); (f) CUP 00-196 for off-site grading in excess of 100,000 cubic yards and construction of the off-site water tanks; and (g) Modification to adopted County Floodway limits. We note that no Notice of Determination has been filed for any approval on this project. Since these entitlements are discretionary your Board has the ability and in this case, we believe you have the duty, to vote against this project. We urge you to caste your vote against the project because many of the findings are incorrect or false as described below in detail. We surmise that the developer proponent has probably cautioned your Board that failure to approve these discretionary permits would be a taking. We note that just as the federal Constitution does not support the conclusion that denial of the project constitutes a taking,

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

neither does the California Constitution. California courts repeatedly have held a public entity is not liable for injury caused by denial of a project when it has discretionary authority to do so. Selby Realty Co. V. City of San Buenaventura, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110. Even where a City Council took several actions apparently with the specific intent of blocking the property owners proposed project, no liability inured. Stubblefield Construction Co. V. City of San Bernardino, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687. In Stubblefield, despite a series of zoning actions which targeted, and ultimately significantly impaired the value of the plaintiff developers land, the appellate court found no violation by the City of the Constitutions guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection. The court found that the developer did not have a vested right to build his project in compliance with the laws applicable at the time of his application to build. Id. at 708. Further, the court held that the City Councils zoning actions which were in response to the concerns of constituents in the affected area, had a rational basis and therefore were not a violation of substantive due process. Id. at 710. We therefore urge you to oppose this project.

Public Process
We object that the Findings , Conditions, Order, etc for this project were not provided to the public until Friday last (immediately before a holiday weekend), thus making it impossible to provide written comments to Board members in a timely manner. (See attached pages from the County website). It is well established that your Board requires information to be provided on Friday before the meeting in order to distribute it to Board members or letter must be provided at the Board meeting. Your late posting made this impossible. While Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas (Jan. 10th Board Meeting Agenda Item 12, transcript included by reference) claimed that members of the public could provide Supervisors with their concerns through other means than appearing at Board meetings, such as written comments or contact with their office, the late manner in which this controversial, long-contested item is presented precludes the public from meaningful comment. We can only conclude that this action was intentional. As you are well aware, the Brown Act allows public comment on each listed item on an agenda. We will therefore be requesting our Brown Act right to speak on each agenda item addressing this matter. We object in advance to such important matters being combined for public comment purposes, thus precluding meaningful comment that can only be brought to the Supervisors at this meeting.

Findings
We specifically object to the following findings:

75. The Board finds substantial benefits resulting from implementation of the project outweigh its unavoidable significant effects on visual quality, air quality, solid waste services, and agricultural resources.
We object to this finding since no specific benefits were identified other than job creation. No economic substantiation of job creation or financial analysis was presented. No jobs other than building the project itself were stated as job creation. Since the developer is already unable to sell fully entitled units that it owns (West Creek and River Park), we assert that there will be no economic benefit from job creation. Instead the public will be required to fund numerous infrastructure requirements such as the Commerce Center Interchange and the desalination of Newhalls wastewater. They will be required to fund through public expenditures, the cost of freeway expansion. They will be subjected to additional health problems resulting from poor air quality, including but not limited to increased asthma. Current residents will be

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

subjected to continued deterioration of their water quality as outlined in comments submitted to your Board and below.

82.Board finds that there is no evidence that the proposed project will be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the project site.
We object to this finding because residents of Santa Clarita will be subjected to increased air quality impacts that diminish their ability to recreate and enjoy their property and continued water quality problems that will devalue their property, among other reasons cited below. Downstream owners and farmers will be subjected to additional flooding. No hearings have been held notifying owners of floodway changes. Increased salts from sewage effluent will harm downstream farming

84. The Board finds that the proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake, or reservoir, consistent with Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, section 66478.1 of the California Government Code, et seq.
The project fronts on the Santa Clara River.

85. The Board finds that in determining that the project will be consistent with the General Plan, the housing and employment needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 86. The Board finds that a Revised Final Project EIR for the project was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines of the County of Los Angeles. The Board reviewed and considered the Revised Final Project EIR, along with its associated Findings and SOC, and found that it reflects the independent judgment of the Board. The Findings and SOC are incorporated herein by this
reference, as if set forth in full. 102. The Board finds that CUP Ii authorizes the import of necessary fill material to raise elevation of the Vesting Map site, which requires an adjustment of the County Floodway boundary to account for changes to the floodplain boundary as a result of flood protection improvements for the project. By elevating the project site out of the floodplain boundary, none of the improvements proposed on the Vesting Map site will be subject to flood hazard or inundation from the river or other nearby drainages. In addition, by elevating the Vesting Map site out of the floodplain boundary and providing bank stabilization where necessary, no housing or other structures will be exposed to flood hazards. The Board further finds that Public Works' conditions of approval for drainage and grading will ensure implementation of CUP II and that the Revised Final Project EIR analyzed the potential impacts of this contemplated action. 103. The Board finds that substantial benefits resulting from implementation of the project outweigh its unavoidable significant effects on visual quality, air quality, solid waste services, and agricultural resources. 107. The Board finds that in determining that the project will be consistent with the General Plan, the housing and employment needs of the region were considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 108. The Board finds that a Revised Final Project EIR for the project was prepared in

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

accordance with CEOA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines of the County of Los Angeles. The Board reviewed and considered the Revised Final Project EIR, along with its associated Findings and SOC, and found that it reflects the independent judgment of the Board. The Findings and SOC are incorporated herein by this as if set forth in full. 109. The Board finds that, as stated in the Revised Final Project EIR and the Findings and SOC, implementation of the project will result in unavoidable significant effects on visual quality, air quality, solid waste disposal, and agricultural resources. However, the Board finds the benefits of the project outweigh these potential unavoidable adverse impacts and they are determined to be acceptable based upon the overriding considerations set forth in the Findings and SOC. We object to these above findings for the following reasons:

Piece-melange of a Project is prohibited Under CEQA

In the last year the Board of Supervisors have considered and separately approved many components required to build out this project. These components consist of but are not limited to: 1. Annexation of the Newhall Ranch Sanitation Plant into the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage District 26 and 32, apparently to allow Newhall Ranch sewage effluent to be processed by the Valencia Treatment Plant rather than the Newhall Ranch Sanitation Plant outlined in the Specific Plan (permit granted by Regional Water Quality in 2006 and hereby incorporated by reference. All materials related to the January 18th, 2011 discussion of this matter before the Board of Supervisors are hereby incorporated by reference). 2. Approval of funding for the Commerce Center Interchange based on previous CEQA documentation. Flood Map changes to the Santa Clara River and levies required for this project are linked to and affect the Floodway changes and Maps for the Landmark Village Project. Traffic calculations are based on this roadway. (See Attached file) 3. The adjacent Mission Village Project is owned by the same land owner, included in the same Specific Plan, has linked infrastructure, including the Commerce Center Bridge and Interchange, and sanitation plant, floodway changes, etc. and impacts the Santa Clara River immediately upstream of the Landmark project. Its approval moved through the Countys planning process on a parallel track to Landmark, but was considered separately. (Administrative record for the Mission Village Project granted tentative approval 10-25-2011, included by reference). These three projects should have been considered together so that their cumulative impacts would be fully apparent to the decision-makers. Instead they were divided into four separate projects (the three projects cited about and the Landmark project). We therefore assert that the Burden of Proof , Findings

and Conditions based on this EIR for the above CUPs and other landuse entitlements are not sufficient to grant their approval since the Supervisors could not have been fully aware of the extent of the impacts of these projects. The full impacts are not contemplated or discussed in these final documents.

Flood Map Changes

We continue to assert that documentation is to approve the Burden of Proof and CUP required for Flood Map changes is insufficient and legally inadequate.

The EIRs Analysis of Water Quality Impacts and Hydromodification is Deficient The EIR purports to mitigate the Projects urban runoff related impacts to the Santa Clara Rivers aquatic and riparian biologic resources to a less than significant effect, but fails to adequately analyze many of these impacts and specific proposed measures needed to adequately protect the River and its dependent communities. Despite repeated agency and public input highlighting

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

these deficiencies, the EIR and its inadequate responses to comments leave the Santa Clara River and its wildlife exposed to irreversible hydromodification1 and water quality impacts, specifically from the massive amount of earthmoving, stream channel modifications, landscape changes, and habitat alterations that the Countys approval of the Flood Map changes and other permits will enable. (Id.) The Projects riparian and riverine habitat-altering hydromodification impacts and urban runoff related water pollution impacts will permanently and continuously degrade the ecological integrity and ecosystem services of Southern Californias last and largest free flowing river, and threaten the survival of threatened and endangered species such as the Southern California Steelhead and the watersheds native riparian plant communities (Id.) The Burden of Proof , Findings and Conditions based on this EIR therefore do not support approvals for these entitlements. The EIRs Analysis of Hydromodification Impacts is Flawed and Fails to Meet CEQAs Good Faith Investigatory and Disclosure Requirements To support a finding of no significant impact and to serve as a sufficient informational document, CEQA requires that an EIRs findings be credible. The EIRs analysis of the Projects hydromodification impacts has two significant flaws: it uses an incorrect magnitude for a 100year flood event when evaluating the ecological based hydromodification impacts and uses an incorrect sediment yield figure to analyze the sediment based riparian hydromodification impacts (See Sections A.1. and A.2. post.) These flaws conceal potentially irreversible and catastrophic downstream ecological and flood impacts and fail to provide a good faith effort at full disclosure and reasoned analysis of public and expert comments, as required by CEQA. The Burden of Proof , Findings and Conditions based on this EIR therefore do not support approvals for these entitlements. The EIR Underestimates the Magnitude of a 100-Year Flood In evaluating the Projects potential hydromodification-related flooding and ecological impacts to the Santa Clara River downstream of the Project area, the EIR relies on an outdated 1994 flow data set to calculate the effects of a 100-year flood event, mostly ignoring an updated 2006 Ventura County flow data set that was available well before the completion of the Draft EIR. Significantly, the 2006 Ventura County data set projects 11% higher flows than the 1994 data set downstream of the Project area during a 100-year flood event. (60,000 cfs in 1994 vs. 66,000 cfs in 2006.). (Id.) As the Ventura County Watershed Protection District observed, use of the 2006 Study might have revised the project findings. Responding to comments critical of their decision to not use the 2006 data, the County did consider the 2006 data set in its Final EIR response to comments, but only with regards to water surface elevation modeling and floodplain protection impact. This analysis did not address velocity, scour, incision, sediment loading, or fluvial geomorphology impacts to the Santa Clara Rivers riparian ecosystem. The County defend its decision not to fully utilize the 2006 data sets by claiming that only the 1994 set has been accepted and adopted by both Los Angeles and
1

The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project defines hydromodification as follows: The process of urbanization has the potential to affect stream courses by altering watershed hydrology and sediment-transport patterns. Development can increase the amount of impervious surfaces on formerly undeveloped landscapes. This reduces the capacity of the remaining pervious surfaces to capture and filter rainfall. As a result, a larger percentage of rainfall becomes runoff during any given storm. Subsequently, runoff reaches stream channels much more quickly, and peak discharge rates are higher than before development for the same size rainfall event. These effects have been termed hydromodification. (see: http://www.sccwrp.org/ResearchAreas/Stormwater/ Hydromodification.aspx, last visited January 28, 2012, included by reference.)

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

Ventura County, the 1994 data set is used by FEMA, and that it is beyond the scope of this project to require an entire update. However, these defensive explanations do not relieve The County of its CEQA procedural obligations to respond to expert comments with reasoned good faith and complete analysis using the 2006 data set, especially in light of the severe potential downstream flood hazard and ecological impacts that may be caused by the Project. Moreover, the Countys failure to use the updated 2006 data set to analyze the hydromodification based ecological impacts of a 100-year flood renders the EIRs analysis of hydromodification based on outdated figures inadequate. We note that that the EIR contains modeling and planning for floods up to the level of the Capital Flood, as defined by the LA County Flood Control District. But the rainfall characteristics used to model the Capital Flood (see e.g. LA DPW Hydrology Manual, 2006, Chapter 5, pp. 37-48, included by reference) do not take into account the effects of global warming. All of the climate models used to predict the climatological effects of climate change predict an increase in extreme weather events, including rainfall and floods. Therefore using the LADPW Capital Flood to estimate the maximum flood likely to occur in the river results in an inadequate analysis of the effects of modifications to the rivers hydrological characteristics, thus putting downstream residents at risk and devaluing their property, contrary to the findings proposed for this project. The EIR Adopted an Improper Baseline for Analysis of Sedimentation Impacts Based on an Erroneous Interpretation of a Technical Study The EIR concludes that the Projects ecological hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara River from changes in sediment transport are less than significant, but its sediment yield analysis contains a significant flaw that renders its conclusions insufficient for informed decision making as to the Projects impacts on sediment provision needed for the maintenance of the Santa Clara Rivers riparian habitat downstream of the Project and of Ventura County beaches. The EIR uses a baseline Project Area sediment yield rate of 1,171 tons per square mile per year (410 tons per square kilometer per year) derived from the Stillwater Sciences 2007 Study2 (2007 Stillwater Sciences Study) for the Eastern Santa Clara River watershed region. 3 However, the 2007 Stillwater Study clearly demonstrates that the sediment yield for existing, baseline conditions in the Project area should either be the sediment yield rate in the Santa Clara River for areas below dams or the sediment yield in the Lower Santa Clara River. (Id., 2007 Stillwater Study pp. 3941, Table 4-2, and Figures 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 4-1 [verifying that the 2007 Stillwater Study places the project within the Lower Santa Clara River Watershed].) The Project area clearly lies below all sediment obstructing dams and within the boundaries that the 2007 Stillwater Study demarks as the Lower Santa Clara River sub-watershed where highly erosive plio-pleistocene rock units predominate; it does not lie within the Stillwater Studys Eastern subwatershed Similarly to the 2007 Stillwater Study, the EIR even acknowledges that the Project is situated within an erosive portion of the Santa Clara watershed with a seemingly large volume of sediment in storage, which indicates that the EIRs authors should have known that using the low Eastern Santa Clara
Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Santa Clara River Parkway Floodplain Restoration Feasibility Study: Assessment of Geomorphic Processes for the Santa Clara River Watershed, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences for the California State Coastal Conservancy. (attached) 3 Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Santa Clara River Parkway Floodplain Restoration Feasibility Study: Assessment of Geomorphic Processes for the Santa Clara River Watershed, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences for the California State Coastal Conservancy. Although cited in the record, this study is not included in the record.
2

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

sediment production and loading rate was incorrect, and not representative of large volume of stored sediment in the Project Area. (Id.) Thus, according to the 2007 Stillwater Study, the EIR should have used either a suspended sediment yield for the Project Area of 1,390 tons per square kilometer per year (3,970 tons per square mile per year) for the Santa Clara River watershed area below dams or of 2,800 tons per square kilometer per year (7,997 tons per square mile per year) for the Lower Santa Clara River Watershed. The consequences of this error are significant: as a result, the EIR dramatically underestimates the annual sediment that runs off the site in a pre-Project condition, and thus dramatically understates the Projects effects in reducing sediment yield from the Project Area, which is needed to maintain downstream reaches of the Santa Clara Rivers riparian habitat and Ventura County beaches. Therefore, because the EIRs sediment loading analysis is not sufficiently credible due its uses of a drastically incorrect lower than actual baseline figure for pre-Project Area annual sediment yield, not only does the EIR run afoul of CEQAs requirement to serve as a sufficient informational document, but the EIR runs afoul of CEQAs requirement to use the proper baseline to evaluate a projects environmental impacts. The EIRs gross underestimate of sediment loading was questioned by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) and the California Coastal Conservancy,4 yet the County failed to provide a good faith reasoned analysis in response to these expert agency comments. A legally adequate response would have involved a careful review the 2007 Stillwater Study, which likely would have revealed the error described above. (Id.) As a result of this error, the EIRs conclusions regarding the effect of the Projects hydromodification activities on sedimentation are invalid, since if sediment yield from the Project site was properly captured as anticipated in the EIR, the Projects effects on reduced sediment loading from the Project and associated downstream ecological impacts would be far greater than acknowledged. Thus, in addition, the Countys failure to either acknowledge, or evaluate their blatant and drastic sediment loading error in response to comments from the Regional Board and the California Coastal Conservancy violates CEQAs requirement to provide a good faith reasoned response to expert comments. (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at 1124; Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 at 1365-67.) The EIR Fails to Analyze the Effectiveness and Feasibility of a Specific Low Impact Development (LID) Mitigation Measure to Minimize the Projects Water Quality Impacts. Throughout the EIR public comment period, public interest organizations and agencies with expertise in protecting the Santa Clara River voiced deep concerns over the hydromodification, water pollution, and ecological impacts associated with the EIRs forecast of a 257% increase in post-development average annual storm water runoff volume discharges from an urban area. While the EIR considers and disagrees with some expert analysis about the Projects storm water runoff-related impacts, it fails to analyze the relative effectiveness and economic feasibility of a specific mitigation measure repeatedly proposed by Ventura Coastkeeper: for the Project to
The analysis used in the EIR relies on a single sediment yield value derived from a huge contributing area in the larger watershed, which is then applied to estimate sediment yield at a much finer, local scale to assess potential project impacts. Such an approach is inherently flawed. Geomorphic analysis conducted in the lower Santa Clara River watershed indicates that the local-scale interaction between geology, land use, and slope is important in driving sediment yield. The combination of these three variables in the lower watershed results in a local sediment yield that varies by 2 orders of magnitude.
4

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

utilize best management practices (BMPs) that adhere to the Low Impact Development (LID) performance standards for new development as set forth in the Ventura County Municipal Stormwater Permit .5 (Ventura Ms4 Permit, Order No. CAS004002; R4-2010-0108.) This proposed mitigation measure was accompanied by expert and agency findings and studies detailing the effectiveness and financial feasibility of implementing the Ventura Ms4 Permit LID standards. (Id.) These findings and studies detailed the enhanced ecological protections from implementing the Ventura Ms4 Permits LID performance standards as opposed to the lowimpact site design BMPs and treatment control Project Design Features (PDFs) set forth in the EIR, which agency commenters deemed far short of what is required by recently adopted southern California municipal storm water permits. While the County enhanced the performance standards for BMPs in the EIR, the EIRs performance standards for the capture, treatment, and release of storm water runoff still fall leaps and bounds short of the water quality and ecological protections provided by the Ventura County Ms4 Permit LID performance standards that require LID BMPs within the Project area to retain storm water for evapotranspiration, infiltration, or reuse from 95% of the developed land. (See footnote 5 ante.) The Countys failure to perform a side-by-side comparison of the effectiveness and feasibility of the stormwater BMPs and treatment control design features set forth in the EIR on the one hand, and the BMPs the Project would need to implement to meet the Ventura Ms4 Permits LID performance standards on the other hand, runs blatantly afoul of CEQAs requirement for an EIR to respond to and evaluate specific suggestions for mitigating a significant environmental impact unless the suggested mitigation is facially infeasible. The EIR thus failed to satisfy CEQAs procedural requirement that proposed mitigation measures be fully evaluated and therefore, CEQAs goal of informed self-government was thwarted. The EIR Used an Improper Baseline to Analyze the Projects Greenhouse Gas Emissions When analyzing a projects emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions to determine whether the project may result in a significant cumulative contribution to climate change, a lead agency must consider the extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. (CEQA Guidelines 15064.4(b)(1) [emphasis added].) According to several court decision, an EIR must focus on
The Ventura Ms4 Permit (attached)would require that unless technically infeasible, the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) of the total Project Area (not including areas of land already precluded from development through a restrictive covenant, conservation easement, or other recorded document for the permanent preservation of open space) must be 5%, which is achieved by rendering at least 95% of impervious surfaces ineffective by retaining the storm runoff volume onsite using either infiltration, storage for reuse, and/or evapotranspiration BMPs that are sized to retain the volume of water resulting from a 0.75 inch storm event or other specified design storm measures. Biofiltration BMPs could be used to achieve the 5% EIA standard if Retention BMPs are technically infeasible, but must be sized to treat 1.5 times the volume and pollutant loads as Retention BMPs would. Because the Project is greater than 50 acres, the storm water runoff from the Projects EIA and developed pervious surfaces would be required to be mitigated using Treatment BMPs and Control Measures that are properly sized to retain and treat, in accordance with the permits specified pollutant removal performance standards, 80% of the average annual runoff volume as calculated using an appropriate public domain continuous flow model. In addition, the Ventura Ms4 Permit would require hydromodification (Flow/ Volume/ Duration) Control Criteria specific to each Santa Clara River tributary and each drainage effected by the Project that would result in the implementation of BMPs needed to protect the stream habitat of tributaries, natural drainage systems, and the Santa Clara River from erosion, incision, and sedimentation impacts that can occur as a result of flow increases from impervious surfaces. (Ventura Ms4 Permit, Part 4. E. III. (Planning and Land Development Program, New Development / Redevelopment Performance Criteria), (Treatment BMP Performance Standards); Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures Manual, July 13, 2011, pg 2-9 to 2-11, 2-28 to 2-29
5

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations and it is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined. In direct contravention of this approach, the Projects EIR applied business as usual criteria to determine whether the Projects GHG impacts were significant rather than relying on existing environmental baseline conditions. As a result the EIR is inadequate as a matter of law because the EIRs determination that the Projects GHG impacts are not significant is not adequately supported by facts and analysis contained in the EIR. Therefore Findings and the Burden of Proof required for the Plan Amendment and other Map Act Entitlements including CUPs based on the information in the EIR are inaccurate and legally insufficient. The Final EIRs significance determination is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that GHG emissions from new development that are 29% below business as usual levels are consistent with Californias near-term emissions reduction objectives and therefore would not result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact on global warming. The business as usual concept is imported from the California Air Resources Boards (CARB) Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan for the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which outlines a general strategy for California to meet AB 32s target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Although the Scoping Plan notes in passing that reaching this statewide goal means cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, the plan provides no further detail or analysis on the relative expected reductions from existing and new land use development to meet AB 32s overall emission reduction objectives. The EIR simply assumes, absent any analysis, that because the Scoping Plan states that Californias overall emissions must be reduced to 29% below business as usual levels to meet the states target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, new development need only reduce emissions to 29% below business as usual to avoid a finding that GHG emissions are significant under CEQA6. Accordingly, the EIR sets the significance threshold for Projectrelated GHG emissions as 29% below CARBs 2020 No Action Taken scenario (No Action Taken being essentially equivalent to business as usual). (CEQA findings acknowledge that the County used business as usual approach.) That is, if the Projects GHG emissions are at least 29% below those anticipated under CARBs 2020 No Action Taken scenario, impacts are considered less than significant. Under this approach, the EIR concludes that the proposed Project will achieve a 31% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario. Based on this reduction compared to the CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario, the County found that the Projects climate change impacts were less than significant. The Countys use of the future, hypothetical CARB 2020 No Action Taken scenario skews the analysis of the Projects greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically understating the Projects actual impacts. According to the EIR, Project-related GHG emissions are expected to be in excess of 269,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year. In comparison, estimated emissions based on existing site conditions are about 10,272 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year.
This assumption disregards expert analyses regarding the ineffectiveness of this approach in actually reducing GHG emissions. The Attorney General noted that it seems new development must be more GHG-efficient than this [business as usual] average, given that past and current sources of emissions, which are substantially less efficient than this average, will continue to exist and emit. The Attorney General also observed that because the business as usual approach would award emission reduction points for undertaking mitigation measures that are already required by local or state law, it results in significant lost opportunities to require meaningful mitigation. (AR 122806.) The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association concluded that reducing emissions by 28 to 33% below business as usual emissions had low GHG emission reduction effectiveness.
6

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

10

Thus, the Project will result in a net increase in GHG emissions of approximately 250,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year compared to existing conditions. This impact disappears, however, when the Project is compared to the hypothetical business as usual 2020 projection. Indeed, in adopting the business as usual approach, the County has committed precisely the error that the Resources Agency warned against when it adopted new CEQA GHG guidelines in 2009. The Statement of Reasons accompanying the new guidelines stated that an EIR should avoid a comparison of the project against a business as usual scenario as defined by [the Air Resources Board] because [s]uch an approach would confuse business as usual projections used on [the Air Resources Boards] Scoping Plan with CEQAs separate requirement of analyzing project effects in comparison to the environmental baseline. The Supreme Court has rejected the illusory comparisons that result from the use of an improper baseline, noting that they can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts, a result at direct odds with CEQAs intent. The Countys use of the hypothetical 2020 business as usual baseline to analyze the Projects climate change impacts is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law that deprived decision makers and the public of the information needed to make an informed assessment of the Projects genuine impacts.

Inaccurate Description of Ammonium Perchlorate Pollution Plume and its continued Spread in the Santa Clarita Valley
As the County is well aware, an ammonium perchlorate plume seeping from the Whittiker Bermite Industrial site has polluted the Saugus and alluvial aquifer, a major source of drinking water supply in the Santa Clarita Valley. Ammonium perchlorate affects the thyroid gland causing lower thyroid levels. This condition can be especially dangerous in fetuses, babies and young children, as it may result in retardation and developmental problems. In can also affect pregnant women and individuals with compromised immune systems. (Please see exhibits in the attached documents). The water agencies have closed seven wells, reopening two after building a treatment facility that removes perchlorate as well as Q2 in the alluvial aquifer. Several wells were permanently destroyed or remain out of service. According to the Settlement Agreement between the Water Agencies and Whittiker Bermite, the pollution plume threatens 12 other drinking water wells7. One of the listed threatened wells, Valencia 201 located next to the Santa Clarita City Hall was the recently closed Although the location of the well would seem to indicate a continued migration of the pollution plume and the Cal. Dept. of Health Services (CDHS) has validated this concern, the water agencies have not completed additional modeling as required by the Dept. of Health Services. The Agencies knew of this closure and migration in August 2010, but did not inform your Board of the problem or of the potential health risks to the existing residents of Santa Clarita. Perchlorate levels in this well remain at 13ppb, more than twice the permitted State Health level. 9See Attached information from the California Dept. of Health Services).

Settlement Agreement, 2007, at Page 66, Landmark EIR Appendix 4-10 zzk

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

11

Valencia Water Company, the company that owns the majority of the threatened wells, will also serve Newhall Ranch. Valencia Water Company is the wholly owned subsidiary of Newhall Land and Farming. (see attached ownership chart) The Santa Clara River is an unadjudicated basin. Newhall Land does not own the ground water from the Santa Clara River. Valencia Water Company already serves approximately 28,000 customers in the Santa Clarita Valley. Under regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the water company may NOT direct the clean ground water available in the western portion of the Santa Clara River ground water basin to new development in Newhall Ranch, leaving existing customers to worry about water pollution and well closures. Continued pumping may draw the pollution pull to other Valencia Water Company threatened wells causing their closure as well. If the pollution plume continues to spread and additional wells are closed, this Landmark approval would require Valencia Water customers and the rest of the valley to have their water supply cut back to supply new development in Newhall Ranch. Such a cutback would violate the County Development Monitoring System and therefore not be consistent with the General Plan. Or it would require additional use of state imported water that the Board of Supervisors sought to avoid for this project. Such additional water may not be available. Further, in spite of bringing this information to the Board, the Water Supply Assessment for this project was not revised, neither was this discussed in the EIR. Thus, the Board cannot make Finding #79, 82, 85, 86 107, 108 and 109 among others. The following Finding statement is factually incorrect since United Water Conservation District is not a party to the Whittaker Bermite Settlement Agreement:

H. The United Water Conservation District provided comments that the draft
Project EIR complies with the terms of the Whittaker Bermite settlement agreement, which agreement was entered into in 2001 among the County, the District, and the permittee to resolve a lawsuit brought by the District to challenge the Specific Plan EIR and related project approvals.

79. Representatives of the CLWA and VWC testified that CLWA's "pump and treat" program is in place at affected water supply wells and has been successful in containing the spread of perchlorate in the relevant groundwater basin, and that the detection of perchlorate in VWC Well 201 was attributable to the length of time needed to have the "pump and treat" program operating, not to the effectiveness of the program. In this connection, the representatives testified that Well 201, a perchlorate contaminated well, currently is out of service and VWC plans to either abandon the well and establish a replacement well, or install treatment facilities at the well. VWC also is conducting monthly testing of this well in coordination with the State Department of Public Health to track perchlorate levels.
While this is indeed what CLWA testified, it is factually incorrect and not substantiated.

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

12

The CDHS (California Department of Health Services) expressed concern that additional pumping would spread the pollution plume and has required additional monitoring. (see attached documents and information attached to our September 2011 submittal).That monitoring has not been completed. Also, the pump and treat facility does not appear to be producing at the predicted level, thus reducing available water supply. (see attached documentation) Further, the CLWAs 2010 Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP") analyzed that possibility and concluded there is adequate water to serve the project.. The 2010 UWMP was approved only with the caveat that additional modeling of the pollution plume would be completed. That modeling has not yet been provided. Therefore the above statement cannot be made.

Specific Plan Inconsistency -Failure to Build Sanitation Plant as provided In the Specific Plan, Failure to address the issue of additional Chlorides released to the Santa Clara River in violation of the State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) resulting from the failure to build Sanitation Plant
77. Representatives of the Sanitation Districts testified that, as part of the project, an interim treatment of project wastewater would occur at the Valencia WRP based on practical engineering considerations, and that such interim treatment would not conflict with the Specific Plan because the permittee remains obligated to build the Newhall Ranch WRP. The representatives also addressed claims that recent notices of violation issued to the Valencia WRP by the Regional Board prevented the permittee from using the Valencia WRP on an interim basis. The representatives stated that the project's interim use of the Valencia WRP will have no negative impact to the Sanitation Districts' sewerage system or its ability to comply with applicable regulations and address the notices of violation. 78. The Sanitation Districts' representatives testified that wastewater from the project would be of a very similar quality, from a chloride standpoint, to the wastewater presently being treated at the Valencia WRP, which is currently in compliance with chloride discharge requirements. Accordingly, the small fraction of wastewater a day that the project would generate would have no impact on the concentration of chloride discharge. The representatives further testified that the permittee has committed to using chloride reduction treatments specifically for the purpose of removing chloride from its portion of the wastewater flow entering the Valencia WRP. As a result, the permittee's interim use of the Valencia WRP would reduce plant discharge chloride levels.
While this information was indeed stated by the Sanitation District, we note that the 2002 agreement was never disclosed or reviewed in the Specific Plan. Instead, the Specific Plan stated it would build a Sanitation Plant that met the 100 mgl chloride limit. No review of the changes to the backbone sewer system was presented in any environmental document. (See attachments to this letter regarding the 2002 Sanitation Plant agreement and the history of the Chloride TMDL problem)

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12

13

89. Prior to obtaining its first building permit within Newhall Ranch: A. The permittee shall be required to complete all of its obligations for sending wastewater to the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant ("WRP") as required by the Agreement for Coordination of Wastewater Management Facilities dated January 9, 2002 (CSD Contract No. 3868), and shall provide a letter to Regional Planning from Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District certifying that such obligations have been satisfied.

B. At the permittee's sole cost, and for purposes of further treating

wastewater that will be sent to the Valencia WRP from Newhall Ranch to a chloride concentration level of lss than 100 mg/I for up to 6,000 equivalent dwelling units, the permittee shall complete the construction of interim chloride and demineralization facilities to the satisfaction of the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, which facilities shall consist of, at a minimum: (1) a 1.2-acre demineralization facility to be constructed adjacent to the existing Valencia WRP; (2) a 1.6-acre brine disposal well facility located within the
Valencia Commerce Center, north of Castaic Creek; and (3) associated lines to and from the Valencia WRP to be constructed in existing road rights-of-way primarily within the

project's utility corridor. For purposes of this Condition and Condition No. 90, "equivalent dwelling units" shall represent a wastewater equivalency determination based on an equivalency formula used by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. While we appreciate the Boards intention to ensure that the chloride level complies with state mandates at the developers expense, we believe that this condition remains inconsistent with the Specific Plan and violates CEQA because it is not part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. As the Board is well aware, conditions of approval can and often are changed at the prerogative of the Board at subsequent meetings. Often these changes are not even noticed to interested parties. We believe that the Board cannot make this change without reviewing it as a Plan Amendment. Further, Condition 89 must be part of the part of the mitigation monitoring plan and legally enforceable. Further, we have attached the Sanitation District Chloride Facility NOP that seems to indicate alternatives that would not comply with this Condition. The Board is proceeding without benefit of the completion of the CEQA process in this matter.

Objections to Additional Sections of the Findings

A. In response to claims that a 33,000-unit oversupply of approved housing units exists in the Santa Clarita Valley, staff explained that, while many of these units may have certain land use approvals, they are not necessarily approved for immediate construction. Therefore, there is no existing oversupply of existing housing in the area. This is a specious and false argument. The County Development Monitoring System (DMS) only addresses units that have received landuse approvals and requires that such approvals conform to the DMS in order to be consistent with the General Plan. Further, tens of thousands of these approvals including several thousand units owned by Newhall Land and Farming have already received full approval and are partially built. These include the 2500 unit West Creek project

SCOPE /FSCR/VCK Joint Comments on Landmark Entitlements 2-21-12 14 and the 1050 unit Riverpark project. Other projects with full approvals, to our knowledge, include Spring Canyon 500 units, Tick Canyon 500 Units, Skyline Ranch 700 units. It appears that County staff purposely obscured information relevant to your decision making regarding this issue. Further, the 33,000 unit supply is not a claim, it is a fact. We attach the housing Section of the Santa Clarita area Plan to substantiate the number of approved but unbuilt housing units at 33,500. In regards to staff statements B. and C. the Board may wish to take note that the River Alteration permit granted by the California Department of Fish and Game is currently being litigated. Sufficiency of the Spineflower preserve is one of the causes of action. We continue to assert the insufficiency of the Spineflower preserve and mitigation measures to protect this endangered species. Should that EIR fail to standup in Court, this approval would have to be re-evaluated.
Submitted on behalf of the above named organizations and with their express permission. Lynne Plambeck President, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment

Attachments: PDFs of County WebPages showing material not posted Ventura MS4 Permit Stillwater 2007 Report Correspondence from the Coastal Conservancy and the RWQB on flood issues Correspondence from EPA on LID standards 2004 State Water Report Evaluation of Salt levels in the State Water Aqueduct CDHS well data Valencia Well 201 and additional information Ammonium Perchlorate Effects on Human Health Two reports Valencia Water Ownership Chart CLWA Water Treatment Report Sanitation District Chloride Facility NOP Ventura Flood Control comments on downstream flooding Climate Change/Flooding Report Video of 1993 downstream flooding (Submitted with comments as a Separate DVD) Excerpt from housing/Population Section of Santa Clarita Area Plan Additional supporting documents included in the CD, submitted with this letter Cultural Comments and supporting Documentation from Wishtoyo Foundation/Ventura Coast Keeper (also submitted under separate cover).