Agenda — Calimesa City Council, May 16, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

80 3.10(c) (3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Source: Project description.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to drainage capacity and additional sources of polluted runoff.

PPP 3.10-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project proponent shall have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared pursuant to the statewide Construction General Permit by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). Also, a receipt of fees paid with the SWPPP Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) shall be provided to the City of Calimesa. The SWPPP shall be implemented onsite by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). Project contractors shall comply with the SWPPP and allow inspection of the construction site by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Cities of Calimesa and/or Yucaipa or their designee(s) to confirm compliance.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following is incorporated into the Project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to drainage capacity and additional sources of polluted runoff. This measure will be included in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:

PDF 3.10-1 Catch basins will be constructed and tied into the existing drainage system.

Impact Analysis
The amount of surface runoff, and thus, the amount of pollutants entering the nearby Calimesa Creek, will not substantially change from the existing condition as a result of this Project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with drainage patterns of the site or area, or the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 194 of 343 ends

81 3.10(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: FEMA
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to water quality.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
The following is incorporated into the Project by the applicant, and would reduce impacts related to water quality.

PDF 3.10-1 Catch basins will be constructed and tied into the existing drainage system.

Impact Analysis
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site is within a Floodway Area in FEMA Zone AE, or “The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights.” However, the Project does not include elements that would become a source of pollutants that would be at risk of release in the event of a flood. Therefore, potential impacts associated with risk release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 195 of 343 ends

82 3.10(e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Department of Water Resources “GSA Map Viewer,” Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana River Basin (Feb. 2016).

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to water quality.

PPP 3.10-2 The Project shall comply with Chapter 16.10 of the Calimesa Municipal Code – Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.

PPP 3.10-3 The Project shall comply with Chapter 13.04 of the Yucaipa Municipal Code – Storm Drain Systems.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Water Quality Control Plan for this watershed requires the SWPPP that is described in PPP 3.10-

1. With implementation of PPP 3.10-1, the Project is consistent with the Water Quality Control Plan.

The Project overlies the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Yucaipa Sub-Basin. Currently there is no sustainable groundwater management plan for the Yucaipa Sub-Basin. The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has organized the formation of a Yucaipa Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) which will be developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by 2022 pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA).

Thus, impacts to the implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan and groundwater management plan would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Page 196 of 343 ends

83 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? █
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
█

3.11(a) Physically divide an established community?
Determination: No Impact.

Sources: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project will not physically divide an established community because the Project involves roadway, sidewalk, and associated drainage improvements. Implementation of the Project will potentially enhance existing transportation connections for existing and future communities.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with dividing an established community would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.11(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Determination: No Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 197 of 343 ends

84 Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project proposes road and sidewalk improvements and associated drainage on existing roadway and small portions of proposed acquired parcels which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The Project will widen County Line Road, construct one roundabout, and include sidewalks and associated drainage improvements as required. This Project is a planned infrastructure project consistent with each City’s General Plan Circulation Element.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

Page 198 of 343 ends

85 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
█
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
█

3.12(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan EIR (CGP EIR), City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR (YGP EIR) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, because there are no known valuable mineral resources in City of Calimesa, the City of Yucaipa, or in the Project site. Given the linear alignment of the Project, the size of the Project, and that the Project is primarily within existing rights-of-way, it is highly unlikely that any surface mining or mineral recovery operation could feasibly take place on the Project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.12(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan EIR (CGP EIR), City of Yucaipa EIR (YGP EIR)

Page 199 of 343 ends

86 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As discussed in Threshold 3.12 (a) above, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, because no mining operations or other resource recovery sites exist on or near the Project site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

Page 200 of 343 ends

87 3.13 NOISE
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
█
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels? █
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
█

3.13(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: City of Calimesa Municipal Code, City of Yucaipa Municipal Code.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to noise:

PPP 3.13-1 City of Calimesa Municipal Code Noise Abatement and Control Regulations Chapter

8.15.080 Construction Equipment: Construction equipment can operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Saturday and Sundays from 10:00 am to 5:00pm, and holidays, as set forth in section 8.15.080(A). No equipment, or a combination of equipment regardless of age or date of acquisition, shall be operated so as to cause noise at a level in excess of 75 decibels for more than eight hours during any 24-hour period when measured at or within the property lines of any property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for residential purposes.

Should the Project exceed the standards of the Municipal Code, it is under the jurisdiction of Code Enforcement to respond to any complaints regarding noise from the Project construction.

PPP 3.13-2 City of Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 87.0905 Noise. Exempt Noises (e)(1):

Construction, repair, or demolition activities between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, except Sunday and Federal Holidays, are exempt from noise standards.

Page 201 of 343 ends

88 Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project includes one roundabout, pavement widening, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

The Project is not increasing the roadway capacity, and instead is designed to improve existing congestion and circulation of the roadway. Therefore, the Project will not increase permanent ambient noise in the vicinity from the existing noise.

Construction-related noise is temporary in nature. The construction of the roundabout at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard is not considered a stationary noise source.

The center point of the noise generation will vary according to construction activities. The total duration for the Project’s construction is estimated at five months.

Existing sensitive receivers along the Project are located adjacent to the right-of-way where construction activities are likely to take place. Attenuation is provided to interior areas of the potentially impacted structures via building materials, including windows. Typical building construction provides a minimum 12 dBA interior noise reduction with windows open and a minimum 20 dBA interior noise reduction with windows closed (FHWA). Additionally, as noted in mitigation measure MM NOISE 4, should it be necessary, the construction contraction shall implement measures that could include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, etc., to reduce noise levels.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM NOISE 1 through MM NOISE 4 will ensure that construction equipment is located as far as is practicable from sensitive receivers, construction activities are limited to the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, during which sensitivity to noise is reduced substantially), mandated noise control features are in place on noise generating equipment (such as mufflers), and procedures are in place in the event the City of Calimesa or the City of Yucaipa receive noise complaints related to construction.

Therefore, as a result of distance, and the interior noise-reducing properties of structural building materials, and implementation of MM NOISE 1 through MM NOISE 4, potential impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

MM NOISE 1: During Project construction, stockpiling, stationary noise-generating equipment and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as is practicable from any existing structure designed for human occupancy.

MM NOISE 2: Construction activities shall be limited to the hours allowed in each City. Construction during other periods, including Sundays and holidays, shall be limited to emergencies and activities determined to be in the interest of the general public.

MM NOISE 3: All construction equipment shall be operated with mandated noise control equipment (i.e., mufflers or silencers).

Page 202 of 343 ends

89 MM NOISE 4: The City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the monitored noise level exceeds the City of Calimesa noise standards, in accordance with Chapter 8.15 Noise Abatement and Control, or with the City of Yucaipa noise standards, in accordance to Chapter 9, 87.0905 Noise, the construction contractor shall implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Any monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical firm under contract with the construction contractor and responsible to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. This measure will be added to the project’s construction specifications.

3.13(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Source: City of Calimesa Municipal Code, City of Yucaipa Municipal Code.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to noise:

PPP 3.13-1 City of Calimesa Municipal Code Noise Abatement and Control Regulations Chapter

PPP 3.13-2 City of Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 87.0905 Noise. Exempt Noises (e)(1):

Construction, repair, or demolition activities between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, except Sunday and Federal Holidays, are exempt from noise standards.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project proposes the construction of roadway, sidewalk, and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and small portions of proposed acquired parcels which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. Groundborne vibration and noise are not typically associated with roadways unless they are utilized as heavy truck routes. County Line Road is not located in an area with intensive industrial uses whereby heavy trucks would utilize it on a regular basis that could create excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Therefore, the potential for impacts resulting from the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels would be less than significant.

Page 203 of 343 ends

90 The proposed improvement Project would increase noise and groundborne vibration in the Project vicinity during the construction phase that would be short-term. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would occur during the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, in accordance with the City of Calimesa’s and City of Yucaipa’s Noise Ordinances. With implementation of MM NOISE 1 though MM NOISE 4, potential impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during the construction phase would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

For MM NOISE 1, MM NOISE 2, MM NOISE 3, and MM NOISE 4, see Threshold 3.13(a), above.

3.13(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Determination: No Impact.

Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Redlands Municipal Airport, City of Calimesa General Plan EIR, City of Yucaipa, General Plan EIR.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or public use airport land use plan.

Additionally, the Project does not propose any habitable structures that would expose people, whether working or residing, in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, regarding the exposure of people to excessive noise levels sourced from airports, no impacts would occur.

Page 204 of 343 ends

91 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
█
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
█

3.14(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP).

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project, consistent with each City’s General Plan Circulation Element, proposes the construction of road and sidewalk improvements and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and small portions of parcels that are proposed to be acquired, which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The needs of existing and projected population, as anticipated by each City’s respective General Plans, will be partially met via Project implementation. Therefore, potential impacts associated with direct or indirect unplanned population growth in an area would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

3.14(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Determination: No Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP)

Page 205 of 343 ends

92 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project includes the acquisition of a limited number of commercial properties and easements.

No residential units would be acquired as a result of the Project. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with displacement of existing people or housing would occur and no mitigation would be required.

Page 206 of 343 ends

93 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? █
2) Police protection? █
3) Schools? █
4) Parks? █
5) Other public facilities? █

3.15(a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

FIRE PROTECTION
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Being a roadway, the Project itself is not a fire hazard and it will provide improved access for emergency vehicles. It is not expected that any new facilities for fire protection would be required to serve the Project. Moreover, the Project is a roadway improvement intended to improve circulation for existing and future traffic and does not propose any structures or other development that would increase demand for fire protection services. Therefore, potential impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Page 207 of 343 ends

94 POLICE PROTECTION
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan, Police and Fire Protection Element Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to maintaining acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives of the public service for police protection:

PPP 3.15-1 City of Yucaipa Policy PSF-4.1 – Service Standards: Maintain appropriate response times to crime, traffic accidents, and other public safety incidents, consistent with community expectations and professional industry standards.

PPP 3.15-2 City of Yucaipa Policy PSF-4.7 – Traffic Safety: Prioritize traffic safety plans and programs to ensure motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users of all ages can safely and conveniently move around the community.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project would be required to meet the Cities’ respective General Plan policies and design standards that optimize public safety on its roadways. Additionally, the Project would improve congestion and safety for vehicles which may decrease demand for police services in response to local traffic accidents. Therefore, potential impacts associated with police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

SCHOOLS
Determination: No Impact.

Sources: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Since the Project is a roadway improvement, it would not result in the generation of additional school age children or create a demand for additional school capacity. No school facilities will be displaced

Page 208 of 343 ends

95 as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with school services would occur and no mitigation would be required.

PARKS
Determination: No Impact.

Source: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project would not result in an increase in population and consequently would not place any demand on existing local or regional park and recreation facilities. Construction of the Project would not displace any existing or known proposed recreational facilities. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with park services would occur and no mitigation would be required.

OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Determination: No Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), Project Description Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 209 of 343 ends

96 Impact Analysis
The Project proposes the construction of road and sidewalk improvements and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and small portions of proposed acquired parcels which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. Implementation of the Project would facilitate and ease circulation and enhance public safety. Additionally, the Project would not result in an increase in population that would cause an increased demand for medical or library services. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with public facilities or the expansion of existing public facilities would occur, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 210 of 343 ends

97 3.16 RECREATION
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
█
b. Does the Project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
█

3.16(a) Would the proposed Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Determination: No Impact.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
No public or private recreation facilities currently exist within the Project’s vicinity. Additionally, the Project would not develop or impact any areas potentially planned for recreational uses. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the increase in use of existing parks or other recreational facilities would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.16(b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment?
Determination: No Impact.

Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP)

Page 211 of 343 ends

98 Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project proposes the construction of road and sidewalk improvements and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and small portions of proposed acquired parcels which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The Project would not include the development of recreational facilities or create or increase demand for new recreational facilities or parks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not occur and no mitigation would be required.

Page 212 of 343 ends

99 3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
█
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
█
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
█
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? █

3.17(a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan EIR (CGP EIR), City of Yucaipa General Plan EIR (YGP EIR), Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to transportation and traffic:

PPP 3.3-1 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-2: Promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation in both existing and planned commercial and residential areas.

PPP 3.3-3 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-3: Promote increased physical activity, reduced driving, and increased walking, cycling, and public transit by; encouraging the development of compact development patterns that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and increasing opportunities for active transportation (walking and biking) and transit use.

PPP 3.3-4 City of Calimesa Policy SUS-18: Encourage convenient bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access to new commercial and industrial development.

PPP 3.3-6 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.1 – Integrated Planning: Integrate air quality planning with land use, economic development, and transportation-related planning to allow for the control and management of air quality.

PPP 3.3-7 City of Yucaipa Policy S-7.2 – Transportation Sources: Encourage the expansion of transit, buildout of the pedestrian and bicycle route network, support of regional ridePage 213 of 343 100
share programs, and other efforts to reduce vehicle miles travelled from Yucaipa and associated vehicle emissions.

PPP 3.17-1 City of Calimesa Policy TM-3: Strive to construct streets in accordance with the City's standard street classifications.

PPP 3.17.2 City of Calimesa Policy TM-4: Maintain and rehabilitate roadways to preserve and improve the quality of city streets and thoroughfares that promote access and mobility between residential neighborhoods, employment centers, shopping, and health services.

PPP 3.17-3 City of Calimesa Policy TM-5: Design each roadway with sufficient width to accommodate projected traffic at acceptable service levels, based on the intensity or density of planned land uses.

PPP 3.17-4 City of Calimesa Policy TM-7: Seek to maintain level of service C on all City-maintained roads. A peak-hour level of service of D, or lower, may be allowed on City-maintained road segments in commercial and employment areas or any combination of major highways.

PPP 3.17-5 City of Calimesa Policy TM-11: Reduce vehicle trips through design and changes in operations.

PPP 3.17-6 City of Calimesa Policy AQ-3: Promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation in both existing and planned commercial and residential areas.

PPP 3.17-7 City of Yucaipa Policy T-1.5 – Multimodal Access: Assess roadway operations for new development and infrastructure projects so that roadways can accommodate safe and convenient access and travel for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.

PPP 3.17-8 City of Yucaipa Policy T-2.1 – Level of Service: To promote the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic, maintain a minimum level of service (LOS) C on all intersections and road segments except for two conditions: at roadway intersections where traffic movements are controlled by roundabouts, LOS D shall be acceptable (e.g., average control delay of 30 seconds per vehicle or better); on roadway segments where a roundabout controls at least one of the intersections at the ends of the segment, the lower half of LOS D shall be acceptable (e.g., V/C ratio of 0.849 or better); or on-street parking, improvement levels, roundabouts, and infrastructure may be considered in furthering acceptable levels of service, safety, and other priorities.

PPP 3.17-9 City of Yucaipa Policy T-2.5 – Environmental Concerns: Minimize environmental impacts from the construction, use, and improvement of roadways on air and water quality, heat island effects, noise levels, view sheds, street-level aesthetics, drainage, and stormwater runoff whenever feasible.

PPP 3.17-10 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.1 – Bicycle Network: Complete bicycle infrastructure improvement projects that close gaps in the City’s bicycle plan illustrated in Figure T3 and those providing connections to adjacent communities and counties to enhance regional connectivity.

Page 214 of 343 ends

101
PPP 3.17-11 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.2 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity: Identify redesign opportunities to create dedicated bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks that connect neighborhoods and commercial areas to community services.

PPP 3.17-12 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.4 – Accessibility Standards: Minimize: environmental impacts from the construction, use, and improvement of roadways on air and water quality, heat island effects, noise levels, view sheds, street-level aesthetics, drainage, and stormwater runoff whenever feasible.

PPP 3.17-13 City of Yucaipa Policy T-3.5 – Biking and Pedestrian Amenities: Provide supporting bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as traffic control devices, bike racks or other parking accommodations, crosswalks, benches, and other infrastructure where feasible.

PPP 3.17-14 City of Yucaipa Policy T-4.7 – Street Improvements: Ensure that roadway improvements allow for easier, safer, and more efficient transit operations and improved passenger safety and accessibility to transit.

Project Design Features (PDF)
PDF 3.17-1 Construct roundabout at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project entails the construction of one roundabout and associated sidewalk and drainage improvements at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard. These improvements are consistent with the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa General Plan Circulation Element and will not impact transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

During Project construction, construction-related vehicles and equipment will use existing roads and right of way within the vicinity of the Project site. To address circulation and safety issues associated with Project construction, the following MM TRANS 1 mitigation measure will be implemented.

Therefore, with the implementation of MM TRANS 1, potential impacts related to a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Page 215 of 343 ends

102
Mitigation Measure:

MM TRANS 1: The Project construction contractor shall provide adequate traffic management resources, as determined by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa, to ensure adequate access to all occupied properties on a daily basis, including emergency access. A construction traffic management plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa, for their respective jurisdictions, prior to initiation of construction within the Project. The plan may include the following components: protective devices, flag person(s) or police assistance for traffic control, to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times. This measure will be added to the Project’s construction specifications.

3.17(b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Project Description, OPR
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013. SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency to develop alternative methods of measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which included SB743. Section 15064.3 of the 2019 CEQA Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Automobile delay (often called Level of Service) will no longer be considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA.

Automobile delay can, however, still be used by agencies to determine local operational impacts.

The proposed Project includes the construction of one roundabout. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, roundabouts would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicles travel and a VMT analysis is not required (OPR, p. 17). Moreover, the Project in it of itself would not increase VMT.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with conflicts or be inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 216 of 343 ends

103

3.17(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Source: Source: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), US Department of Transportation (US DOT)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to transportation and traffic:

PPP 3.17-1 City of Calimesa Policy TM-3: Strive to construct streets in accordance with the City's standard street classifications.

PPP 3.17-2 City of Yucaipa Policy T-1.5 – Multimodal Access: Assess roadway operations for new development and infrastructure projects so that roadways can accommodate safe and convenient access and travel for all users, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.

Project Design Features (PDF)
PDF 3.17-1 Construct roundabout at the intersections of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard.

Impact Analysis
Implementation of the Project would include roadway, sidewalk, and associated drainage improvements in an area that has been previously disturbed, in portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The existing traffic signals at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard would be removed and replaced with a roundabout. Compared to conventional stopcontrolled and signalized intersections, roundabouts reduce the types of crashes where people are seriously hurt or killed (US DOT). The roundabout would not increase hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses and will meet City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa design standards based on their General Plan Circulation Elements. Therefore, potential impacts associated with hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.17(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measures Incorporated.

Source: Project Description, City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 217 of 343 ends

104
Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
Once completed, the Project will supplement emergency access to the area by providing improved travel routes for emergency response vehicles. However, during construction, adequate emergency access and control must be accomplished by implementing a traffic management plan that can ensure safe, albeit, slower traffic flow on the adjacent streets. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to address this potentially significant impact. Therefore, with the implementation of MM TRANS 1, potential impacts related inadequate emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Page 218 of 343 ends

105

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
█
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe.
█
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Source Archaeological Survey Report (ECORP-B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources:

PPP 3.18-1 City of Calimesa Policy PR-6.6 Native American Consultation: Native American Consultation. Continue to offer and conduct consultations with the Native American Heritage Commission on development proposals in accordance with state and federal law.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 219 of 343 ends

106
Impact Analysis
As noted in Threshold 3.5 (b), a records search was conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project site on June 22, 2017 at the EIC and June 21, 2017 at the SCCIC. According to their search, no archaeological resources meet the requirements to be listed under the NRHP, CRHR, or local policies were identified within the Project site. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant. However, in the event of an accidental discovery of a cultural resource, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR 1, which requires the construction in the vicinity of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist determination as to the significance of the find is made and any find be recorded and curated, will reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

MM CR 1 For MM CR 1, see Threshold 3.5(a), above.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Source: Archaeological Survey Report (ECORP-B)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As of July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), signed into law in 2014, amends CEQA and establishes new requirements for tribal consultation. The law applies to all projects that have a notice of preparation or notice of negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration. It also broadly defines a new resource category of "tribal cultural resource" and establishes a more robust process for meaningful consultation that includes: prescribed notification and response timelines, consultation on alternatives, resource identification, significance determinations, impact evaluation, and mitigation measures, and documentation of all consultation efforts to support CEQA findings.

Page 220 of 343 ends

107
A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File. In a letter dated June 22, 2017, the NAHC reported that a search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. However, the NAHC noted that the Project site area is sensitive for cultural resources. (ECORP-B, p. 8.) The Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa, as co-lead agencies, are required to coordinate with Native American Tribes through the Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation process. On July 29, 2020, the City of Calimesa, on behalf of City of Yucaipa, sent a letter notification of the proposed Project to five Tribes in accordance with AB52, as follows: Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI), Torres-Martinez, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. To date, one response has been received from the SMBMI. Since the majority of the Project would be constructed in areas associated with prior disturbances, the potential for the discovery of known tribal cultural resources is limited. However, in the event of an accidental discovery of a tribal cultural resource, implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR 1, which requires coordination with SMBMI if any pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources are discovered, will reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
MM TCR 1 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CR 1, of any pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the discovery be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and, all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to represent SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor onsite.

Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the Project.

Page 221 of 343 ends

108

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
█
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
█
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the Project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
█
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
█
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
█

3.19(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 222 of 343 ends

109
Impact Analysis
The Project proposes to construct road and sidewalk improvements, and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and portions of proposed acquired parcels, which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The proposed Project is an infrastructure project and will not create a demand for water, electricity, gas, or telecommunication facilities. Existing utility poles and underground facilities will be relocated within the proposed Project footprint as part of the construction, where necessary. Therefore, potential impacts associated with relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.19(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Determination: No Impact.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

3.19(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Determination: No Impact.

Page 223 of 343 ends

110
Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project is not required to have a determination from the wastewater treatment provider serving the Project because the use of wastewater treatment is not required. Therefore, no potential impacts associated with wastewater demand would occur and no mitigation would be required.

3.19(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: City of Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP) Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, Programs, or Standard Conditions applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The Project proposes to construct road and sidewalk improvements, and associated drainage improvements on existing roadway and portions of proposed acquired parcels, which are either previously disturbed, portions of vacant lots, or portions of developed parcels. The implementation of the Project would not result in excess solid waste during operation. Construction waste, debris and/or scattered waste would be removed from the Project and delivered to the waste disposal system. However, this limited quantity of waste would not contribute significantly to the exceedance of landfill capacity, or breach statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, potential impacts associated with generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impairing the attainment of solid waste reduction goals would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 224 of 343 ends

111

3.19(e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Project Description
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to solid waste:

PPP 3.19-1 The California Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires municipalities to reduce the amount of waste it sends to landfills by 50%. The Project shall participate in established recycling programs in response to AB 92.

Impact Analysis
Construction of the Project will not present the potential to generate significant volumes of solid waste. Any solid waste debris will be disposed of at a permitted landfill. The Project will generate a negligible quantity of debris during construction; however, operation of the Project will not generate solid waste. Moreover, pursuant to California Waste Management Act (AB 939), the Project will be required to divert at least 50 percent of recyclable, reusable and salvageable debris from landfills.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste regulations would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 225 of 343 ends

112

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? █
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
█
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
█
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
█

3.20(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Sources: Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), California Department of Forest and Fire Protection (CAL)
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
PPP 3.20-1 The City of Calimesa identified the following evacuation routes: Interstate 10 and California Street for north-south movement of traffic; County Line Road for east-west movement of traffic. Additional streets that can augment the routes include Calimesa Boulevard, 3rd Street and 5th Street for north-south traffic flow, as well as Avenue L and Singleton Road for east-west traffic movement.

PPP 3.20-2 The City of Yucaipa Policy CDL-2.6 Road Access. Design roads to meet fire safety and access regulations. Locate and design new roads to follow the existing natural slope contours, minimizing impacts to prominent topographical features.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Page 226 of 343 ends

113
Impact Analysis
According to California Department of Forest and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the proposed Project is not within a state responsibility area (SRA) or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL). Further, the Project site is not adjacent to any wildlands or undeveloped hillsides where wildland fires might be expected or in an area designated to be at risk from wildland fires. The Project would ultimately facilitate the transportation network in the event of an emergency response or evacuation. Temporary construction activities and staging areas would generally be confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to other existing roadways within the Project vicinity. As discussed in Threshold 3.17 (a), access to occupied properties would be maintained at all times with the implementation of mitigation of MM TRANS 1. Therefore, with the implementation of MM TRANS 1, potential impacts associated with impairing an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure
MM TRANS 1 For MM TRANS 1, see Threshold 3.17(a), above.

3.20(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Sources: Calimesa General Plan (CGP), City of Yucaipa General Plan (YGP), California Department of Forest and Fire Protection Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As discussed in Threshold 3.9 (g) and Threshold 3.20(a), the Project is not in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The proposed Project site is a generally flat area at an elevation approximately 2,400 feet above mean sea level. The proposed Project would not contribute to the spreading of wildfire. Therefore, potential impacts associated with pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 227 of 343 ends

114

3.20(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
As noted above in Threshold 3.9 (g) and Threshold 3.20(a), the Project is not in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The Project proposes roadway roundabout improvements to improve traffic flow, sidewalks, and associated drainage.

These improvements will mostly occur on existing County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard roadways. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

3.20(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.

Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Impact Analysis
The proposed Project is not in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Further the Project site is on relatively flat area, does not pose a risk to a downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, and the Project would not change existing drainage patterns. Therefore, potential impacts associated with downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 228 of 343 ends

115

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the Project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?

b. Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerab
le” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?

c. Does the Project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

Impact Analysis

3.21(a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Source: This Initial Study Checklist.

As noted in the analysis throughout this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration document, the following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to this issue.

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
There are no Plans, Policies, or Programs related to degradation of the environment.

Page 229 of 343 ends

116
Project Design Features (PDF)
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project relating to this issue.

Mitigation Measures (MM)
MM CR 1, MM CR 2, MM CR 3, MM TCR 1, and MM GEO 1.

Impact Analysis
All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre‐historical resources were evaluated as part of this Initial Study Checklist and found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures or compliance with regulatory requirements. For impacts to California history or prehistory, MM CR 1, MM CR 2, MM CR 3, MM TCR1, and MM GEO 1 will ensure impacts remain less than significant.

In instances where impacts have been identified, the Plans, Policies, or Programs, Project Design Features, or Mitigation Measures listed above are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment.

3.21(b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Determination: Less Than Significant.

Source: This Initial Study Checklist.

As noted in the analysis throughout this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration document, the following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to this issue:

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
All Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) identified in this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall apply.

Project Design Features (PDF)
All Project Design Features (PDF) identified in this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall apply.

Mitigation Measures (MM)
All Project Mitigation Measures (MM) identified in this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration shall apply.

Page 230 of 343 ends

117
Impact Analysis
The Project will not have any impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

Moreover, the Project will not result in any significant impacts.

The Project is consistent with local and regional plans, including the AQMP and MSHCP, and is not considered growth-inducing as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d). The Project will not induce either directly or indirectly, population and housing growth or increase traffic volumes at the intersection of County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard. The Project will construct a roundabout consistent with the Cities’ respective General Plan Circulation Elements. Any cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the Circulation Elements of these jurisdictions would have been previously evaluated in the EIRs for each General Plan.

Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur with regards to cumulative impacts.

3.21(c) Does the Project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

As noted in the analysis throughout this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration document, the following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to this issue. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:

Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following shall apply:

PPP 3.3-1 through PPP 3.3-8
PPP 3.4-1 through PPP 3.4-7
PPP 3.5-1 through PPP 3.5-4
PPP 3.6-1 and 3.6-2
PPP 3.7-1 through PPP 3.7-4
PPP 3.8-1 through PPP 3.8-3
PPP 3.9-1 through 3.9-2
PPP 3.10-1 through PPP 3.10-3
PPP 3.13-1 through 3.13-2
PPP 3.15-1 through 3.15-2
PPP 3.17-1 and 3.17-14
PPP 3.18-1
PPP 3.19-1
Project Design Features (PDF)
The following shall apply:

PDF 3.1-1
PDF 3.3-1
PDF 3.3-3
PDF 3.9-1

Page 231 of 343 ends

118
Mitigation Measures (MM)
The following shall apply:

MM AQ 1
MM CR 1 and MM CR 2
MM GEO 1
MM HAZ-1
MM NOISE 1 through MM NOISE 4
MM TRANS 1
MM TCR 1
Impact Analysis
The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

In instances where impacts have been identified, the Plans, Policies, or Programs, Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures are required to reduce impacts to less‐than‐significant levels.

Therefore, the Project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Page 232 of 343 ends

119

4.0 REFERENCES
AQIA Urban Crossroads, County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Intersection Improvements Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Calimesa, December 7, 2017. (Appendix A)
Cadre Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Resources Compliance Analysis for the 9.11-Acre County Line/Calimesa Road Roadway Improvement Project. November 19, 2020. (Appendix B)
CAL California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map – Riverside West, State Responsibility Area and Local Responsibility Area. (Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-preventionplanning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazardseverity-zones-maps/, accessed September 15, 2020.) CARB-A California Air Resources Board, Area Designations Maps/State and National, revised December 28, 2018. (Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, accessed September 20, 2020.)
CARB-B California Air Resources Board. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, dated May 6, 2005. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/airquality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4, accessed September 20, 2020.)
CGP City of Calimesa, 2014 General Plan, Adopted August 4, 2014. (Available at http://www.cityofcalimesa.net/Forms/Calimesa%20General%20Plan.pdf, accessed September 8, 2020.)
CCR 8 California Code of Regulations, Title 8. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCo deofRegulations?guid=ICBC28DB0D47911DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&origin ationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defa ult)&bhcp=1, accessed October 16, 2020.)
CCR 13 California Code of Regulations, Title 13. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCo deofRegulations?guid=I143B9530D46811DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&origin ationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defa ult), accessed October 16, 2020.)
CCR 22 California Code of Regulations, Title 22. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCo deofRegulations?guid=I6F56A7E1D4B611DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE&origin ationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defa ult), accessed October 16, 2020.)
CCR 26 California Code of Regulations, Title 26. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCo deofRegulations?guid=I5B751C00D44F11DEB97CF67CD0B99467&origina tionContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defau lt), accessed October 16, 2020.)
CCR 2449 California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449. (Available at https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID1C693E02DDD11E197D9

Page 233 of 343 ends

120
B83B68A61150?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29, accessed November 20,2020.)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, October 2012. (Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title49-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012- title49-vol2.pdf, accessed October 16, 2020.)
CGP City of Calimesa, 2014 General Plan, Adopted August 4, 2014. (Available at http://www.cityofcalimesa.net/Forms/Calimesa%20General%20Plan.pdf, accessed September 8, 2020.)
CGP EIR City of Calimesa, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, general Plan Update 2013, July 2013. (Available at City of Calimesa) CHSC 6.95 California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95. (Available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2

0.&chapter=6.95.&lawCode=HSC&article=1, accessed October 16, 2020.) CMC City of Calimesa, Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 361, and legislation passed through December 2, 2019. (Available at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Calimesa/, accessed September 22, 2020.)
Cortese California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Lis Data Resources, 2020. (Available at https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ accessed September 22, 2020.)
DOC-A California Department of Conservation, Riverside County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet 1 of 3. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/riv16_w.pdf, accessed October 16, 2020.)
DOC-B California Department of Conservation, San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet 2 of 2. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/sbd16_so.pdf, accessed October 16, 2020.)
DOC-C California Department of Conservation, Riverside County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, Sheet 1 of 3. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Riverside_w_15_16_WA.pdf, accessed October 16, 2020.)
DOC-D California Department of Conservation, San Bernardino County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, Sheet 2 of 3. (Available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanBernardino_so_15_16_WA.pdf, accessed October 16, 2020.)
DOC-E California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp; California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Updated April 4, 2019. (Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed September 8, 2020)
ECORP-A Ecorp Consulting, Inc., Historical Resources Evaluation Report for County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard intersection Improvements Project, April 2018. (Appendix C.)
ECORP-B Ecorp Consulting, Inc., Archaeological Survey Report for County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard intersection Improvements Project, April 2018. (Appendix D.)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map no. 06065C0118G, Effective Date August 28, 2008. (Available at

Page 234 of 343 ends

121
https://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=5730&O_Y= 5626&O_ZM=0.154588&O_SX=904&O_SY=763&O_DPI=400&O_TH=57982 06&O_EN=5876131&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14400&HT=103 50&JX=1042&JY=823&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=4&KEY=5797960&ITEM=1& PICK_VIEW_CENTER.x=71&PICK_VIEW_CENTER.y=643.5, accessed November 25, 2020.)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, 2011. (Available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance /analysis_and_abatement_guidance/revguidance.pdf, accessed October 8, 2020)
ISA LOR Geotechnical Group Inc. Initial Site Assessment, Roundabout Concept at Intersection County Line Road and Calimesa, California. April 12, 2016. (Appendix E)
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, April 2018. (Available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf, accessed on November 2020.)
RCA Regional Conservation Authority, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Information Map (RCA) (Available at:
http://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e6 9d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd, accessed October 21, 2020.) RIV WQMP Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Management Plan, a Guidance Document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County. October 2012. (Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/storm water/docs/rcpermit/wqmp/final/Santa_Ana_WQMP_FINAL.pdf, accessed November 2020.)
SCAQMD-A South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. (Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-qualitymanagement-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. accessed November 19, 2020) SCAQMD-B South Coast Air Quality Management District, Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15, September 28, 2010. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-mainpresentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2, accessed November 19, 2020.) SCAQMD-C South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/localized-significance-thresholds, accessed November 19, 2020.) SCAQMD-D South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Analysis Handbook, 1993. (Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook, accessed November 19, 2020.)

Page 235 of 343 ends

122
SB WQMP Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans for the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program NPDES No. CAS618036, Order No.

R8-2010-0036. June 2013. (Available at
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/50/Land/SantaAnaRiver-WQMP-FinalJune2013.pdf?ver=2019-06-11-140312-780, on November 19, 2020.) SVSR Geocon West, Limited Soil Vapor Report for 625 West County Line Road, Calimesa, November 30,2020. (Available as Appendix F.)
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009- 0009-DWQ). September 2, 2009. (Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_q uality/2009/wqo/wqo2009_0009_dwq.pdf, accessed November 2, 20202) US Census United States, Census Bureau, QuickFacts, April 1, 2010. (Available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST120218, accessed September 19, 2020.)
US DOT US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Safety, Roundabout and Mini Roundabouts, last Modified October 30, 2018. (Available at
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/, accessed November, 2020.)
WEBB-A Albert A. Webb Associates, CalEEMod Annual Outputs based on County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Intersection Improvements Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Calimesa, December 7, 2017. (Appendix F) YMC City of Yucaipa, Municipal Code Current through Ordinance 375 and the March 2019 code supplement. (Available
http://yucaipa.org/government/municipal-code/, accessed September 8, 2020.)
YGP City of Yucaipa, General Plan, Adopted April 2016. (Available at http://www.yucaipa.org/wpcontent/uploads/dev_svcs/general_plan/Yucaipa_General_Plan.pdf, accessed September 8, 2020.)
YGP EIR City of Yucaipa, General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 2015. (Available at http://yucaipa.org/wpcontent/uploads/dev_svcs/general_plan/DraftEIR.pdf, accessed September 8, 2020)

5.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
LEAD AGENCIES:

City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Margaret Monson Interim Director of Public Works, City of Calimesa Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager, City of Calimesa

Page 236 of 343 ends

123
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Fermin Preciado, Development Services Director, City of Yucaipa Benjamin Matlock, Planning Manager, City of Yucaipa
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS:

Eliza Laws, Senior Environmental Analyst, Albert A. Webb Associates Monica Tobias, Associate Environmental Analyst, Albert A. Webb Associates

Page 237 of 343 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP)
for
Final
Initial Study Checklist/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa:

County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements (SCH NO. 2022020531)
City of Calimesa
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
Contact: Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
(909) 795-9801 ext. 229
[email protected]
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa CA 92399
Contact: Fermin Preciado, Development
Services Director/City Engineer
(909) 797-2489 ext. 240
[email protected]
Applicants:

City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa
Public Works Department
May 2022

Page 238 of 343 ends

MMRP-2

1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to State of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires adoption of a MMRP for projects in which the Lead Agency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant environmental effects. The Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa are the lead agencies for the proposed County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements project and, therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements IS/MND are implemented to reduce or avoid identified environmental effects.

The purpose of discussing the MMRP in the Final IS/MND is to reiterate to the reader the mitigation responsibilities of the Lead Agencies in implementing the proposed project. The mitigation measures listed in the MMRP are required by law or regulation and will be adopted by the cities as the primary project approval. Certain elements of the project will be adopted or approved by other entities, as indicated in the MMRP matrix.

Mitigation is defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a measure which:
▪ Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action ▪ Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation ▪ Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment ▪ Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance activities during the life of the project
▪ Compensates for the impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments
Mitigation measures provided in this MMRP were initially identified in Section 3.0, Initial Study/Determination of the Final IS/MND, as feasible and effective in mitigating project-related environmental impacts. Several of the mitigation measures are modified as a result of the public review process.

Basis for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The legal basis for the development and implementation of the MMRP lies within CEQA (including the California Public Resources Code). Sections 21002 and 21002.1 of the California Public Resources Code state:

Page 239 of 343 ends

MMRP-3
▪ Public agencies are not to approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects; and
▪ Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.

Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code further requires that: the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings under CEQA so that the program can be made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate significant effects on the environment. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.

Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures
The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, prior to construction, during construction, and during operation. City of Calimesa shall have primary responsibility for administering the MMRP activities to staff, consultants, or contractors.

The City has the responsibility of ensuring that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The City’s designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems. Specific responsibilities of the City include:
▪ Coordination of all mitigation monitoring activities
▪ Management of the preparation, approval, and filing of monitoring or permit compliance reports
▪ Maintenance of records concerning the status of all approved mitigation measures. ▪ Assure quality control of field monitoring personnel. ▪ Coordinate with other agencies regarding compliance with mitigation or permit requirements.
▪ Review and recommend acceptance and certification of implementation documentation. ▪ Act as a contact for interested parties and surrounding property owners who wish to register complaints and observations of unsafe conditions and environmental violations; verify any such actions; and develop any necessary corrective actions.

Page 240 of 343 ends

MMRP-4
Resolution of Noncompliance Complaints
Any person or agency may file a complaint that states noncompliance with the mitigation measures that were adopted as part of the approval process for the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements project. The complaint shall be directed to the City of Calimesa in written form providing detailed information on the purported violation. The City shall conduct an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with a mitigation measure is verified, the City shall take the necessary action(s) to remedy the violation. The complaint shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final corrective action that was implemented in response to the specific noncompliance issue.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Matrix
The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the mitigation measure numbers. The second column identifies the mitigation measures. The third column, entitled “Time Frame for Implementation,” refers to when monitoring will occur. The fourth column, entitled “Responsible Monitoring Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled “Verification of Compliance,” has a sub-column for Initials, Date and Remarks. This last column will be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure, the date on which this verification occurred, and any other notable remarks.

Page 241 of 343 ends

MMRP-5

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX
Impact/Threshold Project Mitigation Measures
Monitoring/Timing
Frequency
Action Indicating
Compliance Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? MM AQ 1 The Project proponent and/or Contractor shall require, by contract specifications, that during construction, all rubber-tired dozers and graders shall be CARB certified Tier 3 or better.

During construction
activities
Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Contractor
Specifications and
Maintenance Records
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5
MM CR 1 In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within MM TCR 1, regarding any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

If significant pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered, and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within MM TCR 1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the plan accordingly.

During construction,
after discovery of
cultural resources
Confirmation of
qualified archeologist
retention/on-going
monitoring/submittal of
Report of Findings and
curate discovered
resources, if applicable
City of Calimesa
Planning Division
Project will cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5.

MM CR 1, see above
During construction,
after discovery of
cultural resources.

Confirmation of
qualified archeologist
retention/on-going
monitoring/submittal of
Report of Findings and
curate discovered
resources, if applicable
City of Calimesa
Planning Division
Project will disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

MM CR 2 Per State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, if human remains are encountered during construction, no further disturbance shall occur in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer) until the San Bernardino County Coroner or Riverside County Coroner, depending on where remains were encountered, has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The San Bernardino County Coroner or Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are not historic, but prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted to determine the most likely descendent (MLD) for this area. Once the most likely descendent is determined, treatment of the Native American human remains will proceed pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This measure will be added to the construction specifications.

During construction
activities, after
discovery of human
remains
Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Construction
Specifications, County
Coroner report, if
applicable
City of Calimesa
Planning Division

Page 242 of 343 ends

MMRP-6
Impact/Threshold Project Mitigation Measures
Monitoring/Timing
Frequency
Action Indicating
Compliance Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials Date Remarks
Geological Resources
The Project will directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature
MM GEO 1 If any paleontological resources are exposed during ground excavation disturbance, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and a qualified paleontological resources specialist will be retained to evaluate the resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures as identified by the paleontologist shall be implemented. Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover, evaluate and curate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. If specimens are found, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and discussion of significance, upon completion of all Project fieldwork.

This measure will be added to the project’s construction specifications.

During construction,
after discovery of
paleontological
resources.

Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Construction
Specifications.

Confirmation of
qualified paleontologist
retention /submittal of
Report of Findings and
curate discovered
resources, if applicable
City of Calimesa
Planning Division
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
MM HAZ 1 Prior to ground disturbance, the Project proponent shall have a Phase II ESA prepared for the Dinosaur Tire and Service (former gasoline station) at 13715 Calimesa Boulevard to geophysical survey the site to identify the location of the former USTs and associated piping and dispensers and to conduct an assessment of soil and soil vapor in the vicinity of the former USTs, dispensers, piping, in ground hoist(s), and clarifiers that may be currently in use on the property.

Remediation recommended by the Phase II ESA analysis shall be performed to areas impacted by the Project. Evidence of completion of the remediation recommended in the Phase II ESA and the completed Phase II ESA report shall be submitted to the Cities for review. The completion and remediation for this site shall be reflected in the Project’s construction specifications.

Prior to ground
disturbance
Approval of Phase II ESA
Report and verify
evidence of remediation
completed and reflected
in construction
specifications
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
Noise
Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies
MM NOISE 1 During Project construction, stockpiling, stationary noise-generating equipment and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as is practicable from any existing structure designed for human occupancy.

During construction
Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Contractor
Specifications, Periodic
Monitoring Reports
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
MM NOISE 2 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours allowed in each City. Construction during other periods, including Sundays and holidays, shall be limited to emergencies and activities determined to be in the interest of the general public.

During construction
Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Contractor
Specifications, Periodic
Monitoring Reports
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
MM NOISE 3 All construction equipment shall be operated with mandated noise control equipment (i.e., mufflers or silencers). During construction Verification by City of Calimesa that
City of Calimesa
Public Works and

Page 243 of 343 ends

MMRP-7
Impact/Threshold Project Mitigation Measures
Monitoring/Timing
Frequency
Action Indicating
Compliance Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials Date Remarks
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Contractor
Specifications, Periodic
Monitoring Reports
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
MM NOISE 4 The City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the monitored noise level exceeds the City of Calimesa noise standards, in accordance with Chapter 8.15 Noise Abatement and Control, or with the City of Yucaipa noise standards, in accordance to Chapter 9, 87.0905 Noise, the construction contractor shall implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible. Any monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical firm under contract with the construction contractor and responsible to the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. This measure will be added to the project’s construction specifications.

MM NOISE 1, MM NOISE 2, MM NOISE 3, and MM NOISE 4, above. During construction Verification by City of
Calimesa that
incorporation of
requirement is in the
Contractor
Specifications, Periodic
Monitoring Reports
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
Transportation
Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system,
including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
MM TRANS 1 The Project construction contractor shall provide adequate traffic management resources, as determined by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa, to ensure adequate access to all occupied properties on a daily basis, including emergency access. A construction traffic management plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa, for their respective jurisdictions, prior to initiation of construction within the Project. The plan may include the following components: protective devices, flag person(s) or police assistance for traffic control, to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times.

This measure will be added to the Project’s construction specifications.

Prior to and during
construction
Approved traffic
management plan
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
Result in inadequate
emergency access MM TRANS 1, see above Prior to and during construction
Approved traffic
management plan
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works
Tribal Cultural Resources
Project will cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074
MM CR 1, see above
During construction,
after discovery of
cultural resources.

Confirmation of
qualified archeologist
retention/on-going
monitoring/submittal of
Report of Findings and
City of Calimesa
Planning Division

Page 244 of 343 ends

MMRP-8
Impact/Threshold Project Mitigation Measures
Monitoring/Timing
Frequency
Action Indicating
Compliance Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials Date Remarks
as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American
tribe, and that is
listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
a resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe
curate discovered
resources, if applicable
Project will cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074
as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American
tribe, and that is
a resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
MM TCR-1 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in MM CR 1, of any pre-contact and/or post-contact cultural resources discovered during Project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the discovery be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and, all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to represent SMBMI for the remainder of the Project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor onsite.

During construction,
after discovery of
cultural resources
Confirmation of
qualified archeologist
retention/on-going
contact with SMBMI/
Monitoring and
Treatment Plan, if
applicable
City of Calimesa
Public Works and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works

Page 245 of 343 ends

MMRP-9
Impact/Threshold Project Mitigation Measures
Monitoring/Timing
Frequency
Action Indicating
Compliance Monitoring Party
Verification
Initials Date Remarks
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe
Wildfire
Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
MM TRANS 1, see above
Prior to and during
construction
Approved traffic
management plan
City of Calimesa
Public Works
and
City of Yucaipa Public
Works

Page 246 of 343 ends

Response to Comments
Final
Initial Study Checklist/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa:

Yucaipa CA 92399
Contact: Fermin Preciado, Development
Services Director/City Engineer
(909) 797-2489 ext. 240
[email protected]
Applicants:

City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa
Public Works Department
May 2022
Attachment 9B

Page 247 of 343 ends

RTC-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.......................................................................... 4

3.0 MASTER RESPONSES............................................................................................................................................... 5 Comment Letter A – Tim Talavera...................................................................................................................... 9 Response to Comment A – Tim Talavera.......................................................................................................11 Comment Letter B – Josh Lucas .........................................................................................................................12 Response to Comment B – Josh Lucas.............................................................................................................14 Comment Letter C – Social Media Posts .........................................................................................................15 Response to Comment C – Social Media Comments..................................................................................19 Comment Letter D – Greta Reynolds ...............................................................................................................20 Response to Comment D – Greta Reynolds...................................................................................................22 Comment Letter E – LeAnn Stephens..............................................................................................................23 Response to Comment E – LeAnn Stephens ................................................................................................. 25 Comment Letter F – Marilyn Day ......................................................................................................................26 Response to Comment F – Marylin Day..........................................................................................................28 Comment Letter G – James Glubka...................................................................................................................29 Response to Comment G – James Glubka.......................................................................................................31 Comment Letter H – Isabel Biasetti..................................................................................................................32 Response to Comment H – Isabel Biasetti.....................................................................................................34 Comment Letter I – Luana Wells .......................................................................................................................35 Response to Comment I – Luana Wells...........................................................................................................37 Comment Letter J – Jim Foster ...........................................................................................................................38 Response to Comment J – Jim Foster...............................................................................................................40 Comment Letter K – Jackie Deaton...................................................................................................................41 Response to Comment K – Jackie Deaton ......................................................................................................43 Comment Letter L – Dmumper@aol.com......................................................................................................44 Response to Comment L – Dmumper@aol.com..........................................................................................46 Comment Letter M – Kelly Jo ..............................................................................................................................47 Response to Comment M – Kelly Jo..................................................................................................................49 Comment Letter N – Bill Miller ..........................................................................................................................50 Response to Comment N – Bill Miller..............................................................................................................52 Comment Letter O – Patricia Plumber............................................................................................................53 Response to Comment O – Patricia Plumber................................................................................................56 Comment Letter P – David and Jennifer Mount ..........................................................................................57 Response to Comment P – David and Jennifer Mount..............................................................................59

Page 248 of 343 ends

RTC-3
Comment Letter Q – State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.........60 Response to Comment Q – State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water .........................................................................................................................................................................................63 Comment Letter R – Judy Main..........................................................................................................................64 Response to Comment R – Judy Main..............................................................................................................66 Comment Letter S – Riverside Transit Agency............................................................................................67 Response to Comment S – Riverside Transit Agency ...............................................................................69 Comment Letter T – Del Taco.............................................................................................................................70 Response to Comment T – Del Taco.................................................................................................................73 Comment Letter U – Ken Troy Diane...............................................................................................................74 Response to Comment U – Ken Troy Diana ..................................................................................................76 Comment Letter V – Inland Empire Biking Alliance..................................................................................77 Response to Comment V – Inland Empire Biking Alliance.....................................................................81 Comment Letter W – Leola Green.....................................................................................................................82 Response to Comment W – Leola Green ........................................................................................................84 Comment Letter X – Marian McBride..............................................................................................................85 Response to Comment X – Marian McBride..................................................................................................87 Comment Letter Y – Anonymous ......................................................................................................................88 Response to Comment Y – Anonymous..........................................................................................................90 Comment Letter Z – Anonymous.......................................................................................................................91 Response to Comment Z – Anonymous ..........................................................................................................93

Page 249 of 343 ends

RTC-4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) § Section 15073, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements Project was circulated to a State Clearinghouse, Responsible Agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day-period that commenced on February 23, 2022 and concluded March 24, 2022 for public review and comment. No new environmental impacts were identified during the public comment period that would change the significance determinations in the circulated IS/MND.

2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines § 15074 requires the decision-making body to consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. There is no requirement for a formal response to each of the comments received (unlike the requirement for a Final Environmental Impact Report). However, in order to provide the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa City Council’s with additional information upon which to base their decision, the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa are providing master responses to certain issues that were raised by one or more comment letters. The master responses are numbered and provided following Table A.

The City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa have prepared this Responses to Comments package to address comment letters received during the CEQA public review period. The materials contained in this document include copies of comment letters and the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa responses. Each comment letter is labeled alphabetically with each individual comment identified by a number. The responses are provided following each letter. All written comments have been made a part of the public record.

Table A Comments Received During Public Comment Period
Comment Letter Agency/Name Date
A Tim Talavera February 17, 2022
B Josh Lucas February 17, 2022
C Social Media Comments Various
D Greta Reynolds February 25, 2022
E LeAnn Stephens February 25, 2022
F Marilyn Day February 26, 2022
G James Glubka February 26, 2022
H Isabel Biasetti February 27, 2022
I Luana Wells March 5, 2022
J Jim Foster March 7, 2022

Page 250 of 343 ends

RTC-5
K Jackie Deaton March 1, 2022
L [email protected] March 8, 2022
M Kelly Keenan March 10, 2022
N Bill Miller No Date Provided
O Patricia Plumber March 10, 2022?
P David and Jennifer Mount March 13, 2022
Q State Water Resources Control Board, Division of
Drinking Water March 14, 2022
R Judy Main March 15, 2022
S Riverside Transit Agency March 18, 2022
T Del Taco Corporate March 24, 2022
U Ken Troy Dian March 24, 2022
V Inland Empire Biking Alliance March 24, 2022
W Leola Green March 24, 2022
X Marian McBride March 18, 2022
Y Anonymous March 18, 2022
Z Anonymous March 28, 2022

3.0 MASTER RESPONSES
The City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa are providing master responses to certain issues that were raised by multiple Commenters which have similar responses. The master responses are numbered and provided below, and they are referred to throughout the letter-specific responses.

Master Response 1: Park Avenue/ Avenue K
Several comments received shared a similar concern regarding an increase in additional traffic due to construction detours on Park Avenue and Avenue K specifically. The commentors emphasized that Park Avenue and Avenue K are currently being used as shortcuts which introduces reckless driving in the area due to insufficient signage. The concern is that Project construction will increase traffic on these streets and that residents will be further exposed detour traffic reducing safety due to traffic speed and insufficient signage.

As discussed in the IS/MND, the Project shall comply with mitigation measure MM TRANS 1 which requires the Project to provide adequate traffic management resources during construction. The City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa will review and approve the construction traffic management plan prior to initiation of construction. As outlined in the IS/MND implementation of MM TRANS 1 will

Page 251 of 343 ends

RTC-6
address circulation and safety issues associated with Project construction. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Master Response 2: Safety Issues Associated with Roundabouts Several comments expressed concern regarding safely navigating and maneuvering through a roundabout. Comments raised the issue regarding large vehicles, such as trucks, safely maneuvering through the intersection. Commentors believed that trucks could potentially fail to maneuver through the roundabout causing the shutdown the entire intersection.

Safety issues with maneuvering a roundabout are not CEQA issues. As discussed in Section 3.17 of the ISMND, the Project will be designed in compliance to policies outlined in both the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa General Plan Circulation Element which includes consideration of larger vehicles using city roadways. These policies are outlined on pages 99 through 101 of the ISMND. Specifically, the Project will be designed to comply with City of Calimesa policy TM-3 and TM-5 which requires Projects to be designed in accordance with the City’s standard street classification and specifies that that roadway design shall be designed with sufficient width to accommodate project traffic acceptable service levels, based on the intensity or density of planned land uses, respectively.

According to the United States Department of Transportation roundabouts reduce the types of car crashes where people get seriously hurt or killed (see ISMND Section 3.17, Transportation). Project compliance with both cities policies outlined in the General Plan Circulation Element would ensure that the Project would be designed for both smaller and larger vehicles to safely travel through the roundabout. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Master Response 3: Traffic Congestion
Comments raised concern regarding the potential for an increase in traffic congestion along the Countyline Road and Calimesa Boulevard due to vehicles using the roundabout. It was suggested that an increase in traffic delays from Interstate 10 as well as other area roads would result in difficultly merging around the roundabout.

Traffic congestion is not a CEQA threshold and therefore not required to be analyzed in CEQA documents. Nevertheless, the ISMND addressed roundabout design in Threshold 3.17 (a), and it was determined that the Project would be designed in compliance to policies outlined in both the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa General Plan Circulation Element. These policies are outlined in the ISMND on pages 99 through 101. Compliance with the policies outlined in the ISMND would ensure that the roundabout will be designed for the safe travel of vehicles and trucks. Specifically, the Project will comply with the City of Yucaipa Policy T-2.1 which focuses on promoting the safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic. Through compliance with policies outlined in Section 3.17, Transportation of the ISMND, the Project would be designed to help streamline the movement of traffic throughout the Cities of Yucaipa and Calimesa. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Page 252 of 343 ends

RTC-7
Master Response 4: Traffic Signals
Various comments opposed the incorporation of the roundabout and requested that the City keep the existing traffic signal at Countyline Road and Calimesa Boulevard and one comment suggested the addition of turning lane and signal.

Traffic signalization not a CEQA issue. Since the project is a roundabout to replace an existing signal, it is up to the City of Calimesa and City of Yucaipa City Councils to consideration Project approval.

The purpose of the IS/MND is to evaluate potential environmental impacts of a proposed Project and to provide mitigation where necessary to avoid, minimize, or lessen those impacts. The IS/MND addressed impacts related to traffic flow within a roundabout in Section 3.17 Transportation of the ISMND. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Master Response 5: Non-Vehicular Crossings
Numerous comments expressed concerns regarding pedestrian and bike safety within the proposed roundabout. Commentators shared a concern for school children crossing at this intersection.

Additional questions were raised regarding where the crossing guard would stand at the proposed roundabout.

As shown in Figure 6 – Proposed Project of the ISMND the Project includes a total of four crosswalks that are designed in compliance with General Plan policy PSF 4.7 of the City of Yucaipa and City of Calimesa Policy SUS-3. Bike lanes will be accommodated by traffic lanes. The Project will be designed to include “Share The Road” signs for biking. Bicyclist will be able to use both traffic lanes and pedestrian sidewalks. Through compliance with policy PSF 4.7 from the City of Yucaipa and Policy SUS-3 of the City of Calimesa and the Cities’ design standards the Project would optimize public safety on its roadways for both vehicular and non-vehicular users. (See Section 3.15, Public Services). As stated in the ISMND, Threshold 3.9 (C) the Project is located approximately 0.40 miles from Mesa View Middle School which is the closest school to the Project site. Additionally, the middle school is located west of the I-10 and currently is not serviced by crossing guard. Therefore, no crossing guard is necessary with Project implementation. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Master Response 6: Project Construction
Commentors expressed concern of possible impacts resulting from Project construction and question longevity of construction. Some of the comments raised concern that Project construction would close off a freeway ramp on I-10.

As outlined in the Project Description of the ISMND, Project construction would require pedestrian and vehicular travel detours to travel to and from their destination around the construction areas.

Page 253 of 343 ends

RTC-8
Additionally, it was noted that access to the affected properties along the Project boundary will be maintained throughout the construction process. The ISMND estimated the Project construction would be short-term in nature, expecting construction to last approximately 5 months. Prior to Project construction the Project construction contractor will be required to provide adequate traffic management resources as specified in MM TRANS 1 outlined in Threshold 3.17 (a). Through compliance of MM TRANS 1 Project construction impacts would be less than significant.

This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Master Response 7: Community Opinions
Various comments were received that raised concerns about other parts of the City or other intersections that do not pertain to the Project or the Project site. Quite of few comments expressed their opposition and discontent with the Project, stating that drivers don’t understand how to navigate through a roundabout safely. Additional comments were received via Social Media, these comments expressed concerns regarding the allocation of financial resources on unnecessary improvements while other areas are being neglected. Some comments were in support of the roundabout.

These comments are noted. The purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to evaluate potential environmental impacts of a proposed Project and to provide mitigation where necessary to avoid, minimize, or lessen those impacts. This comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it change the significance determinations in the IS/MND.

Page 254 of 343 ends

RTC-9
Comment Letter A – Tim Talavera
Comment Letter A Commences on the next page.

Page 255 of 343 ends

From: Tim Talavera <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 10:07 AM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: County Ln Rd / Calimesa BLVD Road Improvements Hello Kelly,
Hope all is well with you. My name is Tim Talavera and I've been a resident of the City of Calimesa just over 7 years now.

I saw a notice posted this AM on the Cities Instagram page and was reaching out regarding some questions/concerns I have while this project is underway.

About two months ago I reached out to the City in regards to concerns I had over traffic flow, speed and safety for residents that live near Park Ave and Avenue K. Prior to these construction plans local residents have used Park Ave/Ave K as a shortcut to avoid the Calimesa BLVD/County Line intersection. Because of this, these streets see their fair share of speeding and unsafe driving. I've voiced concerns about my trash cans being struck by vehicles turning too fast and/or individuals thinking Ave K runs through however it's a dead end. Drivers then turn abruptly at the corner and speed off.

Luckily cars and pedestrians haven't been involved in these incidents but I feel it's only a matter of time. I've spoken with multiple neighbors about this and have confirmed I'm not the only one with these concerns. With this construction taking place my assumption is Pave Ave will be used as a detour route. If this is the case, will residents that live along the route be notified of the detour? Assuming this is accurate, what will the City of Calimesa be doing to monitor the traffic flow and safety of its residents while construction is taking place? How long is the city planning for this work to be completed? I also assume this work will take quite some time to complete so the detours won't be all too temporary.

When I voiced my concerns about traffic flow and safety in the past I was advised to speak to the local Sheriff's Deputy about this. I spoke to Deputy Juan Cedeno about this and what he recommended as a solution was quickly turned down by City staff.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and I look forward to your response.

Tim Talavera
714‐904‐4879
Comment Letter A
A-1

Page 256 of 343 ends

RTC-11
Response to Comment A – Tim Talavera
Response to Comment A-1:

Refer to Master Response 1, 2 and 6.

Page 257 of 343 ends

RTC-12
Comment Letter B – Josh Lucas
Comment Letter B Commences on the next page.

Page 258 of 343 ends

My name is Josh Lucas and I am a resident on park and ave K. We currently have issues with cut through traffic many at high unsafe speeds looking to cut over to 5th street. As of now there is an old non reflective "not a through street" sign that is placed (after) the park / ave k corner that many do not see until after they have sped past it. Many don't see it at all. My concerns are that it will get much much worse when the road improvements begin. Our residential neighborhood WILL become a major detour around the construction, as our neighborhood IS the only way around the intersection heading west at calimesa and south at county line. This is a major concern. Our neighborhood kids play outside and we would all like to ensure the safety of the families in our residential neighborhood. We do understand the importance of the improvements and fully support them, however we would like to know that necessary steps will be taken to ensure our neighborhood is safe with at the very least proper signage to keep our streets from becoming overwhelmed with traffic and speeding cars.

Thank you for you consideration in this matter.

Josh Lucas
951 256 6437
[email protected]
From: Josh Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: County line / Calimesa road work.

Good morning ,
Comment Letter B
B-1

Page 259 of 343 ends

RTC-14
Response to Comment B – Josh Lucas
Response to Comment B-1:

Refer to Master Response 1, 2 and 5.

Page 260 of 343 ends

RTC-15
Comment Letter C – Social Media Posts
Comment Letter C Commences on the next page.

Page 261 of 343 ends

1 Comment Letter C
C-1

Page 262 of 343 ends

3 C-4
C-2
C-3
C-5

Page 263 of 343 ends

C-6

Page 264 of 343 ends

RTC-19
Response to Comment C – Social Media Comments
Response to Comment C-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Response to Comment C-2:

Homeless living under freeways is not a CEQA issue. This comment does not have any bearings on the findings or conclusions of the IS/MND.

Response to Comment C-3:

Refer to Master Response 2.

Response to Comment C-4:

Refer to Master Response 7.

Response to Comment C-5:

Refer to Master Response 3.

Response to Comment 6:

Refer to Master Response 7.

Page 265 of 343 ends

RTC-20
Comment Letter D – Greta Reynolds
Comment Letter D Commences on the next page.

Page 266 of 343 ends

Comment Letter D
D-1
D-2

Page 267 of 343 ends

RTC-22
Response to Comment D – Greta Reynolds
Response to Comment D-1:

Refer to Master Response 3 above.

Response to Comment D-2:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 268 of 343 ends

RTC-23
Comment Letter E – LeAnn Stephens
Comment Letter E Commences on the next page.

Page 269 of 343 ends

From: LeAnn Stephens <[email protected]> Date: February 25, 2022 at 2:46:54 PM PST
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Roundabout Comment
Hi Kelly,
My name is LeAnn Stephens and I just wanted to share my experience with roundabouts and my new teenage driver. I read the article in the News Mirror and saw the few stats that were shared there, but just from experience, the roundabouts are a struggle with new drivers. My daughter would try to avoid them when she was first driving as it’s difficult to know when it’s safe to go and hard to maneuver the car through the roundabout. Even just putting FIVE of them on County Line is a lot! I do not envy fellow moms and dads who have to take their kids driving with those going in.

Maybe a better option at the busy intersection at Calimesa Blvd and County Line Road is to add an arrow for the turning lanes. That way it is clear to all drivers when it’s safe to turn.

Thank you for considering this in the decision.

LeAnn Stephens
Comment Letter E
E-1
E-2

Page 270 of 343 ends

RTC-25
Response to Comment E – LeAnn Stephens
Response to Comment E-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Response to Comment E-2:

Refer to Master Response 4 above.

Page 271 of 343 ends

RTC-26
Comment Letter F – Marilyn Day
Comment Letter F Commences on the next page.

Page 272 of 343 ends

From: Marilyn Day <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 2:23 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Roundabouts
Generally speaking, I am a big fan of roundabouts. I like the ones that have been installed in Yucaipa, and I have traveled though some big ones in different places in the world and most are very efficient.

However, I do have some objections to the one proposed at Calimesa Blvd and County Line Rd.

My first objection is it would most likely require the closing of the freeway ramps at County Line Road which on a daily basis would be very inconvenient as it would increase the distance between off ramps.

Calimesa Blvd and Live Oak/Oak Glen Rd. As it is Yucaipa is has proposed adding ramps at Wildwood Canyon Rd. because of the distance between County Line and Oak Glen. How does increasing that distance make sense, even if temporary?
Second, Calimesa Blvd is often used as an alternative to the freeway when the freeway is backed up in either direction. While that detour is a pain in the neck for those of us who live on Calimesa Blvd., at least with the signal there is a break in traffic so that we can get out onto the street ourselves. And then it seems the detour wouldn't be possible during construction.

These are just the first thoughts that come to mind with this proposal. I think, however, the ones suggested at 5th, 3rd, 2nd, California and Bryant could be affective.

Respectfully,
Marilyn Day
33600 Calimesa Blvd., Yucaipa
Comment Letter F
F-1
F-2

Page 273 of 343 ends

RTC-28
Response to Comment F – Marylin Day
Response to Comment F-1:

Refer to Master Response 6 and 7 above.

Response to Comment F-2:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 274 of 343 ends

RTC-29
Comment Letter G – James Glubka
Comment Letter G Commences on the next page.

Page 275 of 343 ends

From: James Glubka <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 5:53 PM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: County Line / Calimesa Blvd interestion
First I want to thank the city of Calimesa for taking the lead to upgrade County Line Rd. It is way overdue. I travel it most every day. I would like to see a four way stop light intersection.

Rationale: As I take the other rounders in Yucaipa I have been cut off several times to the point now that almost stop if other cars are in the circle as not to get hit. Four way lights also have their problems but it conforms to the standard traffic rules that is the most popular.

James Glubka
Comment Letter G
G-1

Page 276 of 343 ends

RTC-31
Response to Comment G – James Glubka
Response to Comment G-1:

Refer to Master Response 4 above.

Page 277 of 343 ends

RTC-32
Comment Letter H – Isabel Biasetti
Comment Letter H Commences on the next page.

Page 278 of 343 ends

From: Isabel B. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 10:01 AM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Roundabout support
Good morning,
I am a Yucaipa resident and live very close to the California street roundabouts in Yucaipa. I remember the uproar when they were being build but thankfully that did not stop the construction of the roundabouts. I want to give my full support to the City of Calimesa/Yucaipa roundabout project at County Line. I understand that a lot of people are afraid of them and automatically oppose them because they have never used a roundabout and are unfamiliar. They probably don’t know that they are much safer, faster way to travel and better for the environment than traffic lights. Please don’t let those voices distract you from a good plan. I would love it if there was a front page article in the Calimesa and Yucaipa newspapers explaining why roundabouts are a good idea and especially info on how to safely navigate them. Thank you so much for your all your work, Isabel Biasetti, Yucaipa
Comment Letter H
H-1

Page 279 of 343 ends

RTC-34
Response to Comment H – Isabel Biasetti
Response to Comment H-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 280 of 343 ends

RTC-35
Comment Letter I – Luana Wells
Comment Letter I Commences on the next page.

Page 281 of 343 ends

1 From: Luana Wells <[email protected]>
Date: March 5, 2022 at 5:36:12 PM PST
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Traffic circles.

First off, though I'm a good driver, I'm personally never comfortable entering into a traffic round about so that's where my personal concerns lie, but I think many others feel the same trepidation.

I can see that the smaller intersections along County Line Rd. might be handled easier than County Line Blvd and Calimesa Blvd., but if they are in proximity to the schools, what provisions are being made for children's safety? Will there be pedestrians overhead walkways? The County Line/Calimesa Blvd intersection is different. Being parallel to the I‐10, Calimesa Blvd gets lots of big rig traffic. Yucaipa' rest stop provides a night's sleep, then next morning truckers are looking for food...(btw..is Bob's Big Boy ever going to reopen? I'm sure the truckers miss it...) The idea of a semi truck winding through a traffic circle, I just can't envision. If a big truck miscalculated, it would shut down the intersection.

Any chance of getting a "complete" job done on paving Calimesa Blvd? The potholes are getting dangerous with people swerving to avoid them, especially between Singleton and Sandlewood.

Thanks! Luana Wells,
(Give your sweet mother my regards!‐‐my youngest used to babysit you and your sibs when you were tiny!).

Luana Wells
[email protected]
Comment Letter I
I-2
I-1
I-3

Page 282 of 343 ends

RTC-37
Response to Comment I – Luana Wells
Response to Comment I-1:

Refer to Master Response 5 and 7 above.

Response to Comment I-2:

Refer to Master Response 2, 3 and 7 above.

Response to Comment I-3:

Refer to Master Response 7 above,

Page 283 of 343 ends

RTC-38
Comment Letter J – Jim Foster
Comment Letter J Commences on the next page.

Page 284 of 343 ends

1 From: Jim Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:47 AM
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Cc: Lokesh Shivanna <[email protected]>; Yucaipa Station <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Notice of Intent ‐ Calimesa BLVD Road Improvement Project Kelly,
My name is Jim Foster. A short while ago I called your office number and left my phone number with a request to return my call.

Our group (Petromart & GAWFCO) owns the Shell station at 33928 County Line Road, Calimesa that will be affected by the construction planned for the intersection of County Line Road/Calimsa Blvd.

Please give me a call as I have several questions.

Thank you!
Jim Foster
(714) 267‐5764
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lokesh Shivanna <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:18 AM
Subject: Notice of Intent ‐ Calimesa BLVD Road Improvement Project To: Jim Foster <[email protected]>
Hi Jim,
FYI…
Kindly review the attached notice. I am not certain of the impact this project could have on our station.

Thanks,
Lokesh Shivanna
Gawfco Enterprises, Inc.

Direct: 925-979-0560 EXT 10 | Fax: 925-979-0467 | [email protected] www.gawfco.com
3669 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA, 94549
Comment Letter J
J-1

Page 285 of 343 ends

RTC-40
Response to Comment J – Jim Foster
Response to Comment J-1:

There is no specific comment in this letter.

Page 286 of 343 ends

RTC-41
Comment Letter K – Jackie Deaton
Comment Letter K Commences on the next page.

Page 287 of 343 ends

3-1-2022
To Whom It May Concern:

This is in regards to the article in the paper that says the public may comment on the proposed roundabout at County Line Road and Calimesa Blvd.

I have lived in Yucaipa for 73 years and have seen a lot of good changes and several that I feel were bad and the roundabout at this intersection is just crazy. There is the traffic on both these streets plus the off and on ramps for the freeway and I just think that would be soooo much confusion that there will be more accidents than you can count. I very very rarely hear of an accident on this comer but if you take out the lights I am sure it will cause a lot of havoc.

I feel the one on Second and County Line Road is another horrible idea. This is an intersection that a lot of kids are crossing and which side of the roundabout do they cross on and if there is a crossing guard do they stand in the middle of the roundabout for their protection? Now that is just a nasty way to say that this is certainly a hysterical idea. Not sure who thinks of all this stuff but my suggestion is go back and think some more on the cons.

I have to be open and up front that I HA TE all the roundabouts and go other ways to avoid them.

I don't think we should have had any in the first place. I am short and can't see over the fence and plants on Calif and the one on Second, which are very pretty, so I have to pull half way out to see if anyone is coming and if they are I am in the wrong. I have a friend who is very tall and she says the same thing.

We also have a 32' long travel trail and with the truck attached it is very long and maneuvering around the roundabouts is a big pain. My husband has driven big vehicles for a long time and he is thinking this is going to be a problem.

Please don't put any roundabouts in the Calimesa area. Please think about how a lot of people feel but won't write to you. Before the Yucaipa Blvd. ones were put in many many people wrote letters to the editor begging the City not to do it. But as usual, regardless of what they say, the government does not care to hear what people want. They will do as they want. Maybe the money should be spent on paving and repairing streets and other much needed projects.

If and when this is all complete I know of a lot of ways to get to Redlands and Beaumont without using streets with this kind of intersection so I will do my shopping out of town. So much for shop Yucaipa first.

Jackie Deaton RECEIVED
MAR O 7 2022

CITY OF CALIMESA

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Comment Letter K
K-1
K-2
K-3
K-4
K-5

Page 288 of 343 ends

RTC-43
Response to Comment K – Jackie Deaton
Response to Comment K-1:

Refer to Master Response 2 and 7 above.

Response to Comment K-2:

Refer to Master Response 5 above.

Response to Comment K-3:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Response to Comment K-4:

Refer to Master Response 2 above.

Response to Comment K-5:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 289 of 343 ends

RTC-44
Comment Letter L – [email protected]
Comment Letter L Commences on the next page.

Page 290 of 343 ends

1 From: [email protected]
Date: March 8, 2022 at 4:22:49 PM PST
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Co. Line road work
Reply‐To: [email protected]
I definitely approve of the road work. I can't wait to use the roundabouts that are proposed.

Comment Letter L
L-1

Page 291 of 343 ends

RTC-46
Response to Comment L – [email protected]
Response to Comment L-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 292 of 343 ends

RTC-47
Comment Letter M – Kelly Jo
Comment Letter M Commences on the next page.

Page 293 of 343 ends

1 From: kelly jo <[email protected]>
Date: March 10, 2022 at 5:41:17 PM PST
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Round About Yucaipa Resident
The Round About proposed on County Line and Calimesa Blv. is a bad idea and I do not want that to happen. First its already confusing for most people and would create a lot of unnecessary traffic. Our street light there has had no major problems or concerns from this City or Calimesa. It is also useful for the fastfood and gas station entries to have a break in traffic.

You probably have funds to spend for improvements of the roads in Calimesa and that's great.

Please consider maybe improvement on the drainage. During flooding it continues to not only pool up, but damages the street or repairs that are done. Every year it gets worse. Maybe flatten County Line road heading to the freeway so we can see oncoming traffic. Repair the entire County Line road from Freeway to Bryant. That money could be spent better then wasting on another Experiment Round About.

Thank You,
Kelly Keenan
Yucaipa Resident
Comment Letter M
M-1

Page 294 of 343 ends

RTC-49
Response to Comment M – Kelly Jo
Response to Comment M-1:

Refer to Master Responses 3, 4 and 7 above.

Page 295 of 343 ends

RTC-50
Comment Letter N – Bill Miller
Comment Letter N Commences on the next page.

Page 296 of 343 ends

=-------===+-1r.=---� �T<->_J, ._�...l 1 Lu C ;-� - Ca.f·�e.<'u__ r1'�Y1YI:� -�' I � {)_(J_ Jc..�,.;::.!_ Aue� � C.� L 1;11c r_Ct/ Ca f ,� 9 l > :Z C, -------..........i-........ Fvc_) vvt- 1
• B ic Li f/1 )- l J t t/··
3 (p '3 � .:2-. a '-' .. (/1 -+
7 _� F J
'j ll c· o. ,;r G_ Co Ii r. q ? 9 CJ·- � o g_ ----===-==�----;;-' q oq -4 t.t{-� 7/ L __
f<-�; R6 0-�hu 7 - Co�v1 + � JeJ �
� ( �, VVJ·� 0 l�.1- · d
��=--===-=t-r---=I) ,� ·t-c ·, 6 "3 ·-d s-- ?-. 2.. -=-==---------�=-==!l Jh c. pif. Pi1!_� ! · MC.,.......,.__,...,,,_..,.�LJeAve.Jl"J c-ec{ lo u u � lA...r- ; LI o___,_y,_,__,u_h f _Aa...._._...--... n.� ue J � (-) ±. ./i b u �-/ p s s· s· . , 7)1 o. :t
r 1� v e._c---r.: o 0 _9_y, -f' bf,
, _ -1 h. �_ . R e.. -f-' !.4 Ji1 ·e..e_d<· re� t{)Z,. 'v.11 f /'ou� ,:;,} ,...------t-' "'""b t.( • l.- � a... l
/ a_ I L-t M /::
-t-t-,--�=--,----------=�,,;;,,,,,,, [L-e✓
J Tr �µ{/l ft'£ ---
13 /J j tl/.c I/
�J2uLR_;fd�
Comment Letter N
N-1

Page 297 of 343 ends

RTC-52
Response to Comment N – Bill Miller
Response to Comment N-1:

Refer to Master Response 4 above.

Page 298 of 343 ends

RTC-53
Comment Letter O – Patricia Plumber
Comment Letter O Commences on the next page.

Page 299 of 343 ends

Comment Letter O
O-1
O-2

Page 300 of 343 ends

Cont.

O-2
O-3
O-4

Page 301 of 343 ends

RTC-56
Response to Comment O – Patricia Plumber
Response to Comment O-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Response to Comment O-2:

Refer to Master Response 3 above.

Response to Comment O-3:

Refer to Master Response 4 above.

Response to Comment O-4:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Page 302 of 343 ends

RTC-57
Comment Letter P – David and Jennifer Mount
Comment Letter P Commences on the next page.

Page 303 of 343 ends

1 From: Jennifer Mount <[email protected]>
Date: March 13, 2022 at 7:38:24 PM PDT
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Cc: David Mount <[email protected]>
Subject: comment regarding Calimesa improvement project/roundabout Dear Ms. Lucia,
My husband and I would like to state that we are against the roundabout and feel strongly against it for the following reasons:
 Roundabouts are difficult to use, especially those with 2 lanes  Most people don't know how to use them
 Because of uncertainty, many drivers hesitate or enter the roundabout when it it unsafe, potentially increasing the risk for accidents and delays  The current traffic light works fine, everyone is used to it and knows how to use it  We've witnessed drivers come to a complete stop at a roundabout, causing a traffic ripple effect  Our blood pressure rises when we see one approaching
 We go out of our way to avoid them if we know that one (in Yucaipa) is coming up We've both had our driver's licenses since the 90's and do not see the value or the need for roundabouts in Calimesa.

Sincerely,
David and Jennifer Mount
Comment Letter P
P-1

Page 304 of 343 ends

RTC-59
Response to Comment P – David and Jennifer Mount
Response to Comment P-1:

Refer to Master Response 2, 3, 4 and 7 above.

Page 305 of 343 ends

RTC-60
Comment Letter Q – State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water Comment Letter Q Commences on the next page.

Page 306 of 343 ends

March 14, 2022
Calimesa, City of
Attn: Kelly Lucia
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320

CITY OF CALIMESA (CITY), MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE

COUNTY LINE ROAD AND CALIMESA BOULEVARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PROJECT); SCH # 2022020531
Dear Ms. Kelly Lucia:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (State Water Board, DDW) is responsible for issuing water supply permits pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. A project requires a permit if it includes water system consolidation or changes to a water supply source, storage, or treatment or a waiver or alternative from Waterworks Standards (California Code of Regulations (CCR) title 22, chapter 16 et. seq). The above referenced Project will require an amended water supply permit.

The State Water Board, DDW, as a responsible agency under CEQA, has the following comments on the City’s draft MND.
· The document indicates the Project requires a full take of the South Mesa Water Company (SMWC) Well 11, a water well along County Line Road in the City of Calimesa (APN 411-080-005). The document also indicates that the water well will be relocated from its existing location to a nearby location. The new SMWC well site and well will need to be reviewed and approved by the State Water Board, DDW through a site review and a water supply permit amendment. Please add “State Water Board, DDW” to title “2.9 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required” under subtitle “State Agencies” (PDF page 15 & 16).
· Please indicate if the well will be replaced within the same Project site indicated in Figures 1-6 (PDF pages 17-23). If not, please modify the Project site to include the well replacement site and consider the well construction and operation in the Project analysis.
· Please discuss discharges from well drilling, operational discharges, and any associated permits that will be obtained. (Note: Drinking Water discharges to Waters of the US may fall under waste discharge SMWC ID 4DW0535 the Statewide General NPDES Permit 2014-0194-DWQ for Drinking Water Systems Discharges, another general permit, individual permit, or waiver).
· The Project falls within the Upper Santa Ana Valley- Yucaipa Groundwater Basin, a Sustainable Groundwater Management Act high priority basin. If the new replacement well will include a higher capacity pump than the existing well, please discuss well impacts on groundwater supplies.

Comment Letter Q
Q-1

Page 307 of 343 ends

Ms. Kelly Lucia - 2 - March 14, 2022
· The Project is located within the flood zone, Federal Emergency Management Agency Zone AE. Discuss any impacts the Project may have on the flood flows and discuss design features included to protect the well against contamination.

CCR Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 16, Article 3, Section 64560 requires that for any well that will serve a public water system the well designs and specifications shall be submitted to the State Water Board. SMWC should submit well designs to the State Water Board, DDW Riverside District Office prior to the Project construction.

Once the MND is adopted, please forward the following items in support of South Mesa Water Company’s permit application to the State Water Board, DDW Riverside District Office:
· Copy of the draft and final MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP); · Any comment letters received and the lead agency responses as appropriate; · Copy of the Resolution or Board Minutes adopting the MND and MMRP; and · Copy of the stamped Notice of Determination filed at the San Bernardino and Riverside County Clerk’s Office and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse.

Please contact Omar Khan of the State Water Board, DDW Riverside District Office, at 619-525- 4961 or [email protected] if you have any questions regarding permitting requirements.

Sincerely,
Lori Schmitz
Lori Schmitz
Environmental Scientist
Division of Financial Assistance
Special Project Review Unit
1001 I Street, 16th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Cc:

Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Omar Khan
Water Resources Control Engineer
Riverside District
Cont.

Q-1

Page 308 of 343 ends

RTC-63
Response to Comment Q – State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water
Response to Comment Q-1:

The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB, DDW), has stated that they are the responsible party for issuing water supply permits pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Proposed Project evaluated in the IS/MND is the construction and operation of a roundabout and the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa are the CEQA Co-Lead Agencies. The disclosure of the inadvertent impact to an existing drinking water well located in the project footprint which is owned and operated by South Mesa Water Company does not mean the SMWC has any role in the approval of the Cities roundabout Project.

The Cities understand that SMWC will need to conduct their own CEQA analysis and permitting through the SWRCB, DDW and are currently already working with SWRCB, DDW staff in doing so.

This comment letter about SMWC’s well relocation is a separate Project from the City’s roundabout and Countyline Road and Calimesa Boulevard and this comment does not change the CEQA analysis or findings contained within the IS/MND.

Page 309 of 343 ends

RTC-64
Comment Letter R – Judy Main
Comment Letter R Commences on the next page.

Page 310 of 343 ends

?/� � de:>_ .,,__,. /7/)r Ql'lS/de✓ �- a
/'c!ilJ?clt1 btJu / � d/r,-1,ti:i 8h<i' J C«4'}:_
£/Qe Jf d. 7JP2 /;;;le/'oec/200 /� f:t)/2:'-4.
_,
cJ_
4y bl--: /4,4dk_, � �vt!/4 ¾/?e_
bJu11/44Yc-tl _r-/4'/Jd,✓-1.simd 7.�c;, ,!�.
s/al/5/jG-s @;f1C/2- ,'3/ tt?/lferuJ/Se -
��_</4/f /"� C(l_!} •r 4)3/,0_h�/ �
.D m ;::o � 0 �iq_/z_s z!1c 3-� 7lere u) I II 0e aa::;,/ �/)/2� -n } � � -:;,qi' :s u/' e- 4 o T
'-/2 /%1 &7 /2;; 7,? de
0 �
�d ft¾�e /J�J#�e af/d
� _.s4&d/e/' . ��c:1u.17� --C�41'- i✓� &
!YI�_ <?� e)SJ Sb, &LJa_/s _LS .
, �V \ ��tl;/;� : ///1�%. 7::" �'M. 6:re_ a1�
bP K h-LSZZ��m_0tt8LL1e.. -� cfe/J Lf 1&d /4 _
/4�$e f'f CcN1eY'6 crf /k1j J:/'<:}ff,y7,J;
ed1er, JZ/e /J2 lot' -lits Nam'dJt1t!/ .

Comment Letter R
R-1

Page 311 of 343 ends

RTC-66
Response to Comment R – Judy Main
Response to Comment R-1:

Refer to Master Response 2, 5, and 7 above.

Page 312 of 343 ends

RTC-67
Comment Letter S – Riverside Transit Agency
Comment Letter S Commences on the next page.

Page 313 of 343 ends

1 From: Mauricio Alvarez <[email protected]> Date: March 18, 2022 at 11:44:29 AM PDT
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: County Line Road and Calimesa Blvd Road Improvements Hello Ms. Lucia,
RTA has received the NOI for the road improvements on County Line Rd and Calimesa and have no comments regarding this particular project.

Thank you,
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507
Comment Letter S
S-1

Page 314 of 343 ends

RTC-69
Response to Comment S – Riverside Transit Agency
Response to Comment S-1:

Comment noted that RTA has no comments.

Page 315 of 343 ends

RTC-70
Comment Letter T – Del Taco
Comment Letter T Commences on the next page.

Page 316 of 343 ends

2 To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Kathy Steininger <[email protected]>; Dean Norby <[email protected]>; Kerry Couch <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: From Del Taco Corporate ‐ Comments on NOI for MND along W. County Line and Calimesa Blvd ‐ Del Taco #611 at 33940 County Line Rd, Calimesa, California, 92320 Kelly Lucia (Planning Manager, City of Calimesa Community Development), Good afternoon. This is Mark Raber with Del Taco Corporate in Lake Forest. Please accept this email as our comments to the attached Notice of Intent (NOI), for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), at W. County Line and Calimesa Blvd. Our Del Taco is located at 33940 County Line Road and within the area subject to this project. Per the language of the NOI, I understand that you are just in the comment portion of the initial study.

Our landlord brought this project to our attention earlier this month with the understanding that both the City of Calimesa and Yucaipa are planning to construct a roundabout of 82 ft. in diameter to replace the traffic signals.  It is also our understanding that this will require easement acquisitions and full or partial takes from three parcels according to the attached document and screen shot showing our site.  As the stated deadline of 3/24/22 of your NOI, we would like to submit our comments and questions below for your review and consideration:
 How will our parcel that we lease we be effected?  In gathering the available documents, I noticed there are no engineered drawings or designs.  Are there such drawings available now for further review?  Will the dedication of land to accommodate this roundabout result in a reconfiguration of the sidewalk fronting our site?
 Will such dedication force the removal of the landscape buffer fronting our site?  Will such dedication and any realignment encroach into our drive thru?  What would be the estimated timeline of any sidewalk and utility realignment be if this project goes through?  There appears to be storm drain lines within the sidewalk and such work from our experiences can be lengthy.
 While we would support any traffic mitigation that would improve the current traffic conditions as well as aesthetically improve the area, we may not be able to support such a project if the sidewalk encroaches significantly into our leased space if it results in the loss of a significant portion of landscaping.  More importantly, we are very concerned if the dedication requires our existing monument sign to be pushed further back as it will reduce visibility of our signage from oncoming cars.  Additionally, we feel that any dedication and taking of land would need to be mitigated with assurances that we be exempted from current development standards with regards to landscaping, signage, drive thru and driveway requirements both at the time of any dedication and after.

Please accept our questions and concerns as you enter into the next phase of entitlement for this project. If you have any questions, or would like to respond with clarifications on our concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I can be reached on my cell at (949) 285‐7069 or via email at [email protected] . In advance, we Del Taco thank you for taking account our questions and concerns about this project.

Sincerely,
Mark Raber
Manager of Special Projects, Facilities
Del Taco, LLC
25521 Commercentre Dr. 2nd Floor
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 285‐7069 ‐cell
[email protected] ‐ email
Comment Letter T
T-1

Page 317 of 343 ends

3 NOTICE: This email originated from an EXTERNAL SOURCE. Do not click any web links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the contents are safe.

Page 318 of 343 ends

RTC-73
Response to Comment T – Del Taco
Response to Comment T-1:

Details specific to the Del Taco located on Countyline Road near the project is raised by this Comment. No CEQA or environmental issues are raised in this comment letter; rather it is requesting specific design and interface issues related to access with the City Engineer. This comment does not change any of the environmental analysis or significance determinations of the IS/MND.

Page 319 of 343 ends

RTC-74
Comment Letter U – Ken Troy Diane
Comment Letter U Commences on the next page.

Page 320 of 343 ends

1 From: [email protected]
Date: March 24, 2022 at 4:33:58 PM PDT
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Roundabout Calimesa Blvd and County Line
Reply‐To: [email protected]
Pet projects of someone in city hall in Yucaipa and Calimesa don’t need to be shoved down our throats.

People of all ages do not know how to navigate the roundabouts. I was behind someone already in the roundabout who stopped at every entrance to the roundabout whether or not a car was entering. I have almost been hit 3 times by vehicles entering a roundabout when I was already in it. A family member already in the roundabout was flipped off by a man who entered the roundabout directly behind another entering vehicle yelling “STOP “ to my family member. He obviously thought he had the right of way.

Delivery trucks will have trouble navigating the roundabout. There are signs on Yucaipa Blvd. that trucks can’t travel any further on the blvd. because of the roundabouts. All we will be doing is transferring traffic to the Calimesa Blvd. off-ramp in both directions and the Singleton Canyon off-ramp so the roundabouts can be avoided causing more wear and tear on OUR Calimesa streets. Avenue L will definitely be seeing more traffic. We don’t need to follow in Yucaipa’s footsteps.

Ken Troy Diane
Comment Letter U
U-1

Page 321 of 343 ends

RTC-76
Response to Comment U – Ken Troy Diana
Response to Comment U-1:

Refer to Master Response 2 and 7 above.

Page 322 of 343 ends

RTC-77
Comment Letter V – Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Comment Letter V Commences on the next page.

Page 323 of 343 ends

P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org
24 March 2022
City of Calimesa
Attn: Kelly Lucia, Planning Manager
908 Park Avenue
Calimesa, CA 92320
City of Yucaipa
Attn: Fermin Preciado, Development Services Director/City Engineer 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, CA 92399
Submitted to [email protected] and [email protected].

Re: County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2022020531)
Dear Ms. Lucia and Mr. Preciado,
I am writing on behalf of the Inland Empire Biking Alliance to respond to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Road Improvements (“Project”) which has been proposed there on the border of the two cities. Overall, it is encouraging to see the expansion of roundabouts. However, there are concerns about the specific accommodation for bicyclists as well as pedestrians.

Based on Figure 6 – Proposed Project included in the MND, it is not clear how bicycles are planned to be accommodated and further discussion of the topic on page 103 is minimal, consisting only of a reference to the City of Yucaipa’s Policy T-1.5. This is troubling because while it is agreed that the roundabout should be safer overall than the existing square intersection, there remains a very real question of whether those benefits will accrue to bicyclists too based on the Project as planned.

It would be preferable to see the design of the roundabout to include separated bikeways on the roundabout such as are detailed in section 4.3.4 Roundabout Design with Separated Bike Lanes of the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide1. The guidance in Exhibit 4AM:

Transition to Conventional Bike Lane or Exhibit 4AN: Transition to Shared Lane from that same document should also be followed as applicable to help provide an appropriate transition2 on 1 Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide: Chapter 4:Intersections. Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Retrieved online from https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design0/download. 2 Additional examples of transitions can be seen in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjGUQvYwSbo.

Comment Letter V
V-1
V-2

Page 324 of 343 ends

P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org
approach to the roundabout. Doing so would provide bikeways which are more in line with recommendation from the Caltrans contextual bikeway selection guidance3 to providing bikeways which are appealing to4, safe for5, and usable67 by all bicyclists and supports several of the Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPPs) identified in the MND including PPP 3.3-1, PPP 3.3-3, PPP 3.3-4, PPP

3.3-7, PPP 3.17-5, PPP 3.17-6, PPP 3.17-7, PPP 3.17-10, PPP 3.17-11, and PPP 3.17-13.

Additionally, there are potentially even larger concerns about the accommodation for pedestrians, especially given that this is proposed to be a two-lane roundabout. At present, there is a lack of detail on Figure 6 – Proposed Project from the MND about the specifics of what measures are going to be included for pedestrians. This is problematic because per NCHRP Report 6748, two-lane roundabouts with only crosswalks mean that “pedestrians who are blind may be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk” (page 6) in trying to cross which would constitute a hazard by design. We would strongly recommend following recommendations from NCHRPs 674 and 8349 to include design features such as raised tables and at a minimum rectangular flashing beacons and in-roadway warning lights if not a full pedestrian hybrid beacon for at least some of the crosswalk locations.

Finally, we would like to ensure that bicyclists are provided for during construction of the Project. An important issue in that regard is to not use ineffective at best10 “share the road” signage during the construction phase for providing an alternative to any bike lanes to be closed or just as a general warning for bicycles in the roadway. Instead, R4-11 “bikes may use full lane” or other less ambiguous signage which does a better job of providing notice of the potential existence of bikes in the traffic stream while not implying that bicyclists must scamper out of the way of people in motor vehicles should be used.
3 Flournoy, M. (2020). Contextual guidance for bike facilities. Caltrans. Retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/office-of-smart-mobility-and-climatechange/planning-contextual-guidance-memo-03-11-20-a11y.pdf. 4 Fitch, D., Carlen, J., & Handy, S. (2020). Making Bicycling Comfortable: Identifying Minimum Infrastructure Needs by Population Segments Using a Video Survey.
5 Chen, C., Anderson, J., Wang, H., Vogt, R., & Hernández, S. (2017, September). How does Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Correlate with Reported Bicycle Crashes? A Geospatial and Mixed Logit Analysis. The 6th International Cycling Safety Conference.
6 Furth, P. G., Putta, T. V., & Moser, P. (2018). Measuring low-stress connectivity in terms of bike-accessible jobs and potential bike-to-work trips. Journal of transport and land use, 11(1), 815-831. 7 Cabral, L., Kim, A. M., & Shirgaokar, M. (2019). Low-stress bicycling connectivity: Assessment of the network build-out in Edmonton, Canada. Case studies on transport policy, 7(2), 230-238. 8 Schroeder, B. J. (2011). Crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision disabilities (Vol. 674). Transportation Research Board. 9 Schroeder, B., Rodegerdts, L., Jenior, P., Myers, E., Cunningham, C., Salamati, K., ... & Bentzen, B. L. B. (2016). Crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision disabilities: a guidebook (No. Project 03-78B).
10 Pein, W. (2012). The share the road sign. Retrieved online from https://bicyclingmatters.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/the-share-the-road-sign3.pdf.

V-2
Cont.

V-3
V-4

Page 325 of 343 ends

P.O. BOX 8636 Redlands, CA 92375 www.iebike.org
As a once-in-a-generation investment, undertakings such as the Project set the stage for many years to come. Hopefully, this Project can be focal point to build a strong network from, not a weak spot in the network that people seek to avoid in the future. If there are any additional questions, please do not hesitate to reach out for clarification.

Sincerely,
Marven E. Norman, Executive Director
About IEBA The Inland Empire Biking Alliance is advocating for making the Inland Empire a better place for people from all rolls of life. From the children just learning how to ride to the mountain bikers to those headed back and forth to work, school, or their preferred shopping center and beyond, we speak up to make sure they all have safe and convenient place to ride.

V-4
V-5

Page 326 of 343 ends

RTC-81
Response to Comment V – Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Response to Comment V-1:

Refer to Master Response 5.

Response to Comment V-2:

Refer to Master Response 5.

Response to Comment V-3:

Refer to Master Response 5.

Response to Comment V-4:

Refer to Master Response 5 and 6.

Response to Comment V-5:

Comment noted.

Page 327 of 343 ends

RTC-82
Comment Letter W – Leola Green
Comment Letter W Commences on the next page.

Page 328 of 343 ends

1 From: Leola Green <[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2022 at 5:47:08 PM PDT
To: Kelly Lucia <[email protected]>
Subject: Roundabout
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the area. I am not in favor of the roundabout. I already managed to avoid them I take my business to Beaumont, banning , Redlands or even lower Yucaipa or the blvd. It would really be a shame if the residents of calimesa did the same thing because of the roundabout slows down the ability to get stuff and get home.

I’m a caregiver there is only so long I can be away from my patient. I’m going to go the fastest way to get stuff done and back to my client. Yucaipa has added lights and it slows exiting city now 45 minutes.

Do you really want to add more time to peoples day along with the gas it also wasted. Gas is already high don’t add more headaches to peoples problems of financial issues they are fighting now.

I hope you will consider this for yourself. Try running the Yucaipa roundabout and see what is going on for yourself that there is no yielding and they run you down. At least stop signs and lights are a standard and law that help everyone.

You go this route and you are opening to more accidents not to mention slowing the first responders down to get to save lives. Yucaipa first responders are using the backroads and lower Yucaipa to get around the traffic. Roundabout causes bottleneck traffic.

I wonder how the city would feel when you get sued for a death because first responders could not get there fast enough especially when it comes to heart attack or stroke minutes count.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
Comment Letter W
W-1
W-2

Page 329 of 343 ends

RTC-84
Response to Comment W – Leola Green
Response to Comment W-1:

Refer to Master Response 7 above.

Response to Comment W-2:

Refer to Master Response 2, 3 and 7 above

Page 330 of 343 ends

RTC-85
Comment Letter X – Marian McBride
Comment Letter X Commences on the next page.

Page 331 of 343 ends

March 18, 2022
Marian McBride
13374 Village Rd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Kelly Lucia
Calimesa City Planner
908 Park Ave.

Calimesa, CA 92320
Dear Ms. Lucia,
I am giving public comment on the proposed roundabout at Calimesa Blvd. and County Line Rd. I am against yet another roundabout on County Line. There will be too many already when this project is finished. I do not see an advantage, especially for commuters who will have to get through this obstacle course every morning.

Also, I don't think it is wise spending to take out a perfectly good traffic signal and put in a very expensive roundabout.

Thank you, -11��
Marian McBride
Comment Letter X
X-1

Page 332 of 343 ends

RTC-87
Response to Comment X – Marian McBride
Response to Comment X-1:

Refer to Response 7 above.

Page 333 of 343 ends

RTC-88
Comment Letter Y – Anonymous
Comment Letter Y Commences on the next page.

Page 334 of 343 ends

"i 77) I
I
I
, J • L 11 fY'\ P, GI' I 1v 5T l- ./.fJ t ,., 6
1 £. Re) i'). A I< , 1)
CO · 1
'DO ,-
"tJ2, 0 Tt '/ O\A
..... 11· · rv W' f .. !
\"\U\J.1\J tli?:l()IJ'" J •• J
MotvE \I ·<,. P,..v
C oNct;,�N�
(..
f?. t � {< y � s -�, E.. i) u (» "
., A J ._. t •
Qu I\ f
A i)i) ·) 1;;_ f 1,,'(d>(� (i
" > f.- ,N�\c.. l_ I G,� -
• I � I,, • I� l £.,\S.� Vo NC\ , ' L(
w ,_ A.i I l • I f
Ov, Nu 'Rot., uol'
•t I •'
T ,J - ' JJ c:::

Comment Letter Y
Y-1

Page 335 of 343 ends

RTC-90
Response to Comment Y – Anonymous
Response to Comment Y-1:

Refer to Master Response 3 and 7 above.

Page 336 of 343 ends

RTC-91
Comment Letter Z – Anonymous
Comment Letter Z Commences on the next page.

Page 337 of 343 ends

Kelly Lucia
NO, NO, NO to roundabout at Calimesa Blvd/County Line Rd - How in the world would anyone on Calimesa Blvd even get into the roundabout with all the CL Rd traffic?!! !
Please strip streets ASAP including speed bumps
Please stop Calimesa exit from becoming a truck stop and trash dump by Bob's Big Boy
How about updating the public on when the Cherry Valley exit will be transformed so trucks and vehicles can get off eastbound safely? And if there is, God forbid, a fire emergency people will die before they can get out of the area! Do you even care about Calimesa???
Comment Letter Z
Z-1

Page 338 of 343 ends

RTC-93
Response to Comment Z – Anonymous
Response to Comment Z-1:

Refer to Response 7 above.

Page 339 of 343 ends

Attachment 9C

Page 340 of 343 ends

1 RESOLUTION 2022-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CALIMESA CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL

STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR

THE PROPOSED COUNTY LINE ROAD/CALIMESA BOULEVARD

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY LINE ROAD AND Calimesa

BOULEVARD IN THE CITIES OF CALIMESA AND YUCAIPA
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa, in coordination with the City of Yucaipa, obtained a federal grant to complete preliminary engineering, environmental compliance processing, and right-of-way acquisition to construct a roadway, drainage, and related improvements at County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the proposed County Line Road and Calimesa Boulevard Transportation Improvement Project includes a roadway roundabout and the Project boundary goes between the Counties of Riverside (to the south) and San Bernardino (to the north), with portions within the City of Calimesa and portions within the City of Yucaipa; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project constitutes a project that is subject to review under the National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”) (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa are co-lead agencies for the proposed Project under CEQA and NEPA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa undertook environmental review of the proposed Project in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA and NEPA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa caused the preparation of an Initial Study (“IS”) and of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the proposed Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, it was determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15070 Attachment 9D

Page 341 of 343 ends

2 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, staff from the Planning Departments of the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa provided public notice of the 30-day public comment period and of the Cities’ intent to adopt the proposed IS/MND as required by law, by distribution of the IS/MND and notice of intent to organizations and individuals who previously requested such notice in writing to the Cities of Calimesa and Yucaipa; responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and to the county clerks of the County of San Bernardino and the County of Riverside; by posting of said notice of intent, and advising all interested persons of their right to submit written comments during the public comment period; and the 30-day public comment period commenced on February 23, 2022 and extended through March 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at Calimesa City Hall, 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, California 92320, and at Yucaipa City Hall, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California 92399; and
WHEREAS, written comments were received during the 30-day public comment period from twenty four (24) entities and individuals; no new environmental issues or substantive comments requiring substantial revision to the IS/MND were raised by any comments submitted; and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b), there is no requirement to make any substantial revisions to the IS/MND or recirculate the proposed IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, a duly noticed public meeting was conducted by the Calimesa City Council to consider the IS/MND for the Project, together with the staff report, comments received during the 30-day public comment period, supporting documents, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for this Resolution, as well as any public comments received at the public meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIMESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council has independently reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), dated May 2022, copies of which are included in the record of proceedings, with the originals on file in Office of the City Clerk of the City of Calimesa, and incorporated herein by this reference. Based on the whole record before it, the City Council finds that (i) the IS/MND and MMRP were prepared in accordance with CEQA; and (ii) based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the proposed IS/MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project.

Page 342 of 343 ends

3 Section 3. The City Council has also independently reviewed and considered the MMRP for the Project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and the City Council further finds that the proposed MMRP reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council and that the MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project.

Section 4. The City Council designates the custodian of records for the IS/MND, MMRP, and all other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based, to be the City Clerk of the City of Calimesa, located at 908 Park Avenue, Calimesa, California 92320; telephone number (909) 795-9801.

Section 5. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed in accordance with CEQA.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2022. ________________________________

WILLIAM DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

DARLENE GERDES, CITY CLERK

Page 343 of 343 ends

Calimesa City CouncilMay 16, 2022

Calimesa City Council
May 16, 2022