Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — La Verne City Council, January 21, 2025 (part 2 of 5)

Findings

Page 30 of 305 ends

biodiversity including, but not limited to, the following resources: southern oak riparian woodlands, southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub, ruderal-disturbed, and riparian areas. Policy RM -5.2 incorporates habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible. Policy RM -5.3 requires development proposals which could have a potential impact to biological resources to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat. Policy RM -5.6 focuses conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses. Policy RM-5.7 conserves existing native vegetation where possible and integrates regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate. Action RM -5.1 requires the maintenance of a buffer area between natural waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas. Action RM -5.2 requires new development and infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Access Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed. Action RM -5.3 requires new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to protec ted riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-2: Open Space. A community with distinctive natural open spaces that provide significant scenic value to La Verne.

Policy RM-2.1: Balanced Open Space System. Support a balanced and integrated open space system that reflects a variety of considerations, including resource conservation, recreation, aesthetics, and community identity.

Policy RM-2.2: Minimal Alterations to Existing Space. Encourage minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Policy RM-2.3: Wilderness Management Plan. Implement and support recommendations and policies established in the City of La Verne Wilderness Management Plan.

Policy RM-2.5: Regional Cooperation. Recognize areas of overlapping jurisdiction with

Page 124 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 31 of 305 ends

respect to open space and biological resources, such as Los Angeles County’s Significant Ecological Area, and coordinate the City’s actions with efforts of surrounding cities, agencies, and Los Angeles County to protect and maximize regional open space.

Policy RM-2.6: Cooperative Agreements. Where feasible, enter into inter-jurisdictional cooperative agreement with allied agencies such the Angeles National Forest, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the cities of Claremont, San Di mas, and Pomona, and non -governmental organizations, to implement resource management programs.

Action RM -2.2: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

Goal RM-5: Biological Resources. A community that preserves our diverse plant and animal life.

Policy RM-5.1: Biological Resource Protection. Preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to La Verne’s and the region’s biodiversity including, but not limited to, the following resources: Southern Oak Riparian Woodlands, Southern Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub, Ruderal-Disturbed, and riparian areas.

Policy RM -5.2: City Programs. Incorporate habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible.

Policy RM-5.3: New Development. Require development proposals with the potential to impact biological resources, including non -infill sites and sites adjacent to open space, to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat.

Policy RM -5.4: Wildlife Corridors. Support the establishment of contiguous wildlife corridors by removing existing physical barriers that restrict wildlife access to water and native habitat, where feasible.

Policy RM-5.5: Land Use Planning. Ensure that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses.

Policy RM -5.6: Focused Conservation. Focus conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses.

Policy RM-5.7: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Page 125 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 32 of 305 ends

shade. The City’s “urban forest” refers to all public- and privately-owned trees, vegetation, and landscaping throughout La Verne which provide a range of benefits to the community, including reduced energy use, cooling along streets and sidewalks, improved air and water quality, diversification of wildlife habitat, and increased health and well-being.

Policy RM-5.9: Mature and Protected Trees. Avoid removal of large, mature trees and protected trees that provide wildlife habitat or contribute to the visual quality of the environment to the greatest extent feasible through appropriate project design and building siting. If full avoidance is not possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees on-site over off-site locations.

Policy RM-5.10: Agency Coordination. Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, or local agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to conducting management activities in riparian areas.

Action RM -5.1: Maintain a buffer area , determined by a qualified biologist, for both construction and operations, between natural (not manmade) waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas.

Action RM-5.2: Require new development, as well as infrastructure projects, long -range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Access Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

Action RM -5.3: Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Publicize volunteer-based programs that organize community creek restoration and/or clean-up events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

Action RM-5.4: Where feasible, vegetation and tree removal should occur outside of the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If not feasible, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey wit h a brief letter report, submitted to the City of La Verne Community Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed.

If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure the nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction activity, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of La Verne Community Development

Page 126 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 33 of 305 ends

Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other appropriate agencies.

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact BIO-3, pages 5.2-35 through 5.2- 38)
Explanation: Streams, rivers, wet meadows, and vernal pools (wetlands and jurisdictional waters) are of high concern because they provide unique aquatic habitat (perennial and ephemeral) for many endemic species, including special status plants, birds, invertebrates, a nd amphibians. These aquatic habitats oftentimes qualify as protected wetlands or jurisdictional waters and are protected from disturbance through the CWA.

As indicated in Impact BIO-2 and described in Section 5.9 of this Draft EIR, the Planning Area contains several aquatic habitats that may qualify as federally protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters. Section 404 of the CWA requires any project that in volves disturbance to a wetland or water of the U.S. to obtain a permit that authorizes the disturbance. If a wetland or jurisdictional water is determined to be present, then a permit must be obtained from the USACE to authorize a disturbance to the wetla nd.

Although subsequent projects may disturb protected wetlands and/or jurisdictional waters, the regulatory process that is established through Section 404 of the CWA ensures that there is “no net loss” of wetlands or jurisdictional waters. If, through the design process, it is determined that a future development project cannot avoid a wetland or jurisdictional water, then the USACE would require that there be an equal amount of wetland created elsewhere to mitigate any loss of wetland.

Construction activities associated with site -specific future development projects associated with implementation of the General Plan Update could result in the disturbance or loss of waters of the U.S. This includes perennial and intermittent drainages; un named drainages; vernal pools; freshwater marshes; and other types of seasonal and perennial wetland communities.

Wetlands and other waters of the U.S. could be affected through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption (including dewatering), alteration of bed and bank, and other construction-related activities.

The General Plan Update is a planning document that enables future development beyond existing conditions but does not include any specific development proposals; therefore, adoption of the General Plan Update

Page 127 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 34 of 305 ends

would not directly impact the environment. However, the Project could have an indirect change on the physical environment through subsequently approved projects that are consistent with the proposed General Plan Update. Subsequent development accommodated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in impacts to wetlands. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Individual projects would require a detailed and site -specific review of each site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these federal and State laws are implemented t hrough the permit process.

Additionally, the General Plan Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including wetlands, from adverse effects associated with future development and improveme nt projects within the Planning Area. Policy RM-5.1 seeks to preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to La Verne’s and the region’s biodiversity including, but not limited to, the following resources: southern oak riparian woodlan ds, southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub, ruderal -disturbed, and riparian areas. Policy RM-5.2 incorporates habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible. Policy RM -5.3 requires development proposals which could have a potentia l impact to biological resources to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat. Policy RM -5.6 focuses conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses. Policy RM-5.7 conserves existing native vegetation where possible and integrates regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate. Action RM-5.1 requires the maintenance of a buffer area between natural waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas. Action RM-5.3 requires new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-2: Open Space. A community with distinctive natural open spaces that provide significant scenic value to La Verne.

Page 128 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 35 of 305 ends

Policy RM-2.2: Minimal Alterations to Existing Space. Encourage minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Policy RM -2.3: Wilderness Management Plan. Implement and support recommendations and policies established in the City of La Verne Wilderness Management Plan.

Policy RM-2.5: Regional Cooperation. Recognize areas of overlapping jurisdiction with respect to open space and biological resources, such as Los Angeles County’s Significant Ecological Area, and coordinate the City’s actions with efforts of surrounding cities, agencies, and Los Angeles County to protect and maximize regional open space.

Action RM -2.2: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

Goal RM-5: Biological Resources. A community that preserves our diverse plant and animal life.

Policy RM -5.2: City Programs. Incorporate habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible.

Policy RM-5.3: New Development. Require development proposals with the potential to impact biological resources, including non -infill sites adjacent to open space, to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat.

Policy RM-5.5: Land Use Planning. Ensure that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses.

Page 129 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 36 of 305 ends

Policy RM-5.7: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Policy RM-5.8: Urban Forest. Build upon existing streetscapes and develop an urban forest along the City’s major corridors and in residential neighborhoods to provide avian habitat, sequester carbon monoxide emissions, foster pedestrian activity, and provide shade. The City’s “urban forest” refers to all public- and privately-owned trees, vegetation, and landscaping throughout La Verne which provide a range of benefits to the community, including reduced energy use, cooling along streets and sidewalks, improved air and water quality, diversification of wildlife habitat, and increased health and well-being.

Action RM -5.3: Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Publicize volunteer -based programs that organize community creek restoration and/or clean-up events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

4. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native

Page 130 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 37 of 305 ends

resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact BIO-4, pages 5.3-39 through 5.3- 44)
Explanation: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwis e disjunct larger habitats or habitat fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate-seeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.

Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species that use corridors as thru-ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat requirements necessary for a passage species everyday survival. “Corrido r dwellers” are those species that have limited dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time.

Future development under the General Plan Update could result in creation of new barriers to animal movement in the urbanizing portions of the City; however, the majority of new development is anticipated to occur in areas that have been previously developed. Future intensified development within the Planning Area would have the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts. Direct impacts to wildlife movement corridors generally occur from blockage or interference with the connectivity between blocks o f habitat, a decrease in the width of a corridor or linkage that constrains movement, or the loss of visual continuity within a linkage or corridor. Even when not directly constrained by development, corridors are also vulnerable to edge effects and human encroachment as well. Wildlife nursery sites include areas that provide the resources necessary for reproduction of a species, including foraging habitat, breeding habitat and water sources.

Direct impacts to nursery sites from future development projects resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update could include removal of habitat for development and infrastructure. Indirect impacts to nursery sites would have the potential to result from noise, lighting and changes in

Page 131 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 38 of 305 ends

drainage patterns, introduction of pests or domestic animals, and other edge effects. These impacts can substantially interfere with native wildlife nursery sites. Determining whether or not a specific area is a nursery site requires field surveys, which a re often only valid for a given breeding season depending on the wildlife species present.

The General Plan Update is a planning document that accommodates future development but does not include any specific development proposals; therefore, adoption of the General Plan Update would not directly impact the environment. However, future developme nt resulting from implementation of the Project could have an indirect change on the physical environment through subsequently approved projects that are consistent with the General Plan Update. Subsequent development resulting from implementation of the p roposed General Plan Update could result in impacts to wildlife movement corridors and the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Individual projects would require a detailed and site -specific review of t he site to determine the presence or absence of wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites. If found present and disturbance is required, federal and State laws require measures to ensure movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites are not adversely impacted.

Additionally, the General Plan Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects within the Planning Area. Policy RM-2.2 encourages minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas. Policy RM -2.3 requires the implementation of the recommendations and policies established in the La Verne Wilderness Management Plan. Policy RM -2.6 directs the City to enter into inter -jurisdictional cooperative agreements, as feasible, with allied agencies, such the Angeles National Forest, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the cities of Claremont, San Dimas, and Pomona, and non- governmental organizations, in order to implement resource management programs. Policy RM-5.2 incorporates habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible. Policy RM -5.3 requ ires development proposals which could have a potential impact to biological resources to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat. Policy RM-5.4 supports the establishment of contiguous wildlife corridors by removing existing physical barriers that restrict wildlife access t o water and native habitat, where feasible. Policy RM-5.5 ensures that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses. Policy RM-5.6 focuses conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special status species and

Page 132 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 39 of 305 ends

that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses.

Action RM-5.1 requires the maintenance of a buffer area between natural waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas. Action RM-5.2 requires new development and infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Access Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed. Action RM -5.3 requires new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduc e impacts. Action RM -5.4 would ensure that surveys are conducted if vegetation and tree removal is proposed to occur during the nesting bird season and to provide for buffers if active nests are confirmed.

With compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions, future development resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-2: Open Space. A community with distinctive natural open spaces that provide significant scenic value to La Verne.

Policy RM-2.2: Minimal Alterations to Existing Space. Encourage minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Policy RM -2.3: Wilderness Management Plan. Implement and support recommendations and policies established in the City of La Verne Wilderness Management Plan.

Page 133 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 40 of 305 ends

Policy RM-2.6: Cooperative Agreements. Where feasible, enter into inter-jurisdictional cooperative agreement with allied agencies such the Angeles National Forest, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the cities of Claremont, San D imas, and Pomona, and non -governmental organizations, to implement resource management programs.

Action RM -2.2: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

Goal RM-5: Biological Resources. A community that preserves our diverse plant and animal life.

Policy RM -5.2: City Programs. Incorporate habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible.

Policy RM-5.5: Land Use Planning. Ensure that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses.

Policy RM-5.7: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Page 134 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 41 of 305 ends

including reduced energy use, cooling along streets and sidewalks, improved air and water quality, diversification of wildlife habitat, and increased health and well-being.

Action RM-5.4: Where feasible, vegetation and tree removal should occur outside of the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If not feasible, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of La Verne Community Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed.

If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre -construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. A bio logical monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure the nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction activity, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of La Verne Community Development Department, California Department of Fish and Wil dlife (CDFW), and other appropriate agencies.

Page 135 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 42 of 305 ends

4. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact BIO-5, page 5.3-44 through 5.3- 47)
Explanation: Future development under the General Plan Update would be subject to all applicable federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection of biological resources as outlined above. The City’s local tree preservation policy is codified into Municipal Code Chapter 18.78, Preservation, Protection and Removal of Trees, which provides protections for significant and heritage trees within the City by prohibiting the removal of any significant or heritage tree unless a tree or heritage grove removal permit is first obtained. Prior to the granting of a tree removal permit, an application for removal must be submitted to the community development department. The removal of significant and heritage trees requires replacement with a species designated by the community development director or his designee, per Section 18.78.140, Replacement Required. In addition, the General Plan Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect biological resources, including trees. Policy RM-2.2 encourages minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas. Policy RM -2.3 requires the implementation of the recommendations and policies established in the La Verne Wilderness Management Plan. Policy RM-5.1 seeks to preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to La Verne’s and the region’s biodiversity including, but not limited to, the following resources:

Southern Oak Riparian Woodlands, Southern Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub, Ruderal-Disturbed, and riparian areas. Policy RM-5.2 requires the incorporation of habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible. Policy RM-5.3 requires development proposals which could have a potential impact to biological resources to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat. Policy RM-5.7 conserves existing native vegetation where possible and integrates regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate. Policy RM-5.9 avoids removal of large, mature trees and protected trees that provide wildlife habitat to the greatest extent feasible through appropriate project design and building siting. Action RM -5.2 requires new development and infrastructure projects, long-range planning projects, and other projects, to comply with the requirements of the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Access Plan to ensure that potentially significant impacts to special status species and sensitive resources are adequately addressed.

Page 136 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 43 of 305 ends

Based on the required compliance with the General Plan Update and local regulations, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-2: Open Space. A community with distinctive natural open spaces that provide significant scenic value to La Verne.

Policy RM-2.2: Minimal Alterations to Existing Space. Encourage minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Policy RM -2.3: Wilderness Management Plan. Implement and support recommendations and policies established in the City of La Verne Wilderness Management Plan.

Action RM -2.2: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

Goal RM-5: Biological Resources. A community that preserves our diverse plant and animal life.

Policy RM -5.2: City Programs. Incorporate habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible.

Policy RM-5.3: New Development. Require development proposals with the potential to

Page 137 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 44 of 305 ends

impact biological resources, including non -infill sites and sites adjacent to open space, to provide biological assessments in areas which may contain important plant communities and wildlife habitat.

Policy RM-5.5: Land Use Planning. Ensure that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses.

Policy RM-5.7: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Page 138 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 45 of 305 ends

5. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than Significant. (Draft EIR, Impact BIO-6, pages 5.3-47 through 5.3- 50)
Explanation: There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans within the Planning Area. While not considered habitat conservation plans, a number of local and regional plans are aimed at protecting biological resources within the Pla nning Area, including the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Access Plan and the Los Angeles County SEA Program. While the General Plan Update would redesignate a portion of land within the La Verne Wilderness Area from Open Space and Hillside Residential to Specific Plan Residential, changes to existing land use designations not previously approved are not proposed.

Rather, the General Plan Update proposes to simplify how Specific Plans are shown on the Land Use Map and provides fo r other updates to reflect amendments to the Land Use Map reviewed and approved since the last comprehensive update. As such, the General Plan Update would not alter or conflict with implementation of the La Verne Wilderness Area Management and Public Acce ss Plan. Future development projects within unincorporated land in the City’s SOI would be subject to compliance with the County Municipal Code, including Section 22.102.090, SEA Development Standards, which provides development standards for projects within a County-designated SEA. Further, the General Plan Update includes a number of goals, policies, and programs intended to protect biological resources. As such, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the provisions of an adopte d Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigations required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-2: Open Space. A community with distinctive natural open spaces that provide significant scenic value to La Verne.

Page 139 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 46 of 305 ends

Policy RM-2.2: Minimal Alterations to Existing Space. Encourage minimal alteration of the natural terrain in environmentally sensitive open space areas.

Policy RM -2.3: Wilderness Management Plan. Implement and support recommendations and policies established in the City of La Verne Wilderness Management Plan.

Policy RM-2.6: Cooperative Agreements. Where feasible, enter into inter-jurisdictional cooperative agreement with allied agencies such the Angeles National Forest, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, the cities of Claremont, San D imas, and Pomona, and non -governmental organizations, to implement resource management programs.

Action RM -2.2: Periodically coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to share plans regarding open space protection and access.

Goal RM-5: Biological Resources. A community that preserves our diverse plant and animal life.

Policy RM -5.2: City Programs. Incorporate habitat maintenance techniques into City programs when possible.

Policy RM-5.5: Land Use Planning. Ensure that open space areas that contain sensitive biological resources are maintained as passive recreation uses.

Page 140 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 47 of 305 ends

Policy RM-5.7: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing native vegetation where possible and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Action RM -5.3: Require new development which has the potential to result in water quality impacts to the City’s creeks and the local groundwater basin to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Publicize volunteer -based programs that organize community creek restoration and/or clean-up events and provide public education regarding the benefits of city and regional water resources.

Page 141 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 48 of 305 ends

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact CUL-1, pages 5.4-26 through 5.4- 30)
Explanation: Known historic resource sites are located throughout the Planning Area, as described above, and undiscovered or potentially eligible sites may be located in various areas of the Planning Area. Redevelopment and alteration of existing structures has the potential to impact known and potentially eligible historical resources. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or al teration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” There are 69 historic resources and two historic districts within the City, as documented above in Table 5.4 -3. These historic resources are located throughout the City, with the majority located in the City’s original historic center, varying in terms of type, architectural style, condition, and alteration history. While the General Plan Update does not directly propose any adverse changes to any historic resources, future development allowed under the General Plan Update could affect known historical reso urces or unknown historical resources which have not yet been identified. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies and actions listed below.

The General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions that would serve to preserve historic and cultural resources within the City. Policy RM -3.1 directs the City to promote community identity and local history by identi fying, documenting, and appropriately archiving tangible and intangible cultural resources so they can be recognized, accessed, and appreciated by future generations. Policy RM-3.2 continues to integrate cultural resources into everyday planning processes through careful and creative collaborative design review and prioritization of historic and cultural history in new design development.

Policy RM -3.6 directs the City to evaluate the condition of historical buildings, the costs of rehabilitation, and the f easibility of preservation or conservation alternatives when considering the demolition or movement of historic structures, encouraging the adaptive re-use of the historic structure when possible. Policy RM -3.7 ensures projects adhere to the preservation procedures and provisions included in the City’s adopted Specific Plans and

Page 142 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 49 of 305 ends

La Verne Municipal Code, and State Historical Building Code.

Action RM-3.2 requires applicants for future proposed projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations are required as part of the technical study. All work is to be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. Action RM-3.5 continues to implement the preservation procedures and provisions of the La Verne Municipal Code and adopted specific plans and requires the inclusion of preservation -sensitive policies in new specific plans, as appropriate. Action RM -3.6 directs the City to maintain a current list of selected buil dings and sites of outstanding local importance until such time that the City has an ordinance and a local register and/or places the buildings and sites on the California Register of Historical Resources. Action RM-3.12 directs the City to offer Mills Act agreements (contracts between the City and owners of designated historic resources enabling the owners to receive property tax breaks) to owners of exemplary historic resources who will use the funds to provide the highest standards of restoration and maintenance. Action RM-3.14 requires preservation plans for significant properties where demolition of structures, including outbuildings, are proposed.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State and local regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Future development projects within the Lordsburg Specific Plan area would be required to comply with preservation guidelines that apply t o all projects affecting the infrastructure, buildings, and landscape features in the Specific Plan area. Future development projects within the Old Town La Verne Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Specific Plan’s design standards and guidelines for historic structures, including the requirement that no building in the Specific Plan area that is 50 years old or older may be demolished unless it is demonstrated that said building is not a significant resource, or demolition has been prev iously approved by a master plan. The Arrow Corridor Specific Plan contains provisions that would ensure the Carrion Adobe site (919 Puddingstone Drive) be preserved in its entirety as a historically significant site. In accordance with Chapter 18.16, Deve lopment Review, of the La Verne Zoning Code, approval of a precise plan is required whenever there is a new use or an “intensification of use” to a building or property. Section 18.16.100, Precise Plans—Findings, stipulates in part that during precise plan review, the approving body consider the protection and enhancement of historic, archaeological and cultural resources.

Page 143 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 50 of 305 ends

Additionally, the La Verne Municipal Code Section 16.34.050, Properties Involving Scenic or Cultural Resources, provides standards that apply to the subdivision of any parcel containing a potential historic resource identified in City, County or State reco rds, by local survey, by nomination to a City register, by the General Plan or any implementing zoning or specific plan.

It requires applicants to prepare a comprehensive analysis and inventory prior to submission of any map application. If it is determined that the area contains archaeological, paleontological, historical, architectural or landscape resources that warrant protection, a mitigation program is required to ensure adequate protection of the resource. Therefore, with compliance with the General Plan Update goals, policies and actions and existing regulations, the General Plan Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-3: Cultural Resources. A City that celebrates and preserves its rich culture and historic assets.

Policy RM -3.1: Documentation. Promote community identity and local history by identifying, documenting, and appropriately archiving our tangible and intangible cultural resources so they can be recognized, accessed, and appreciated by future generations.

Policy RM-3.2: Planning Considerations. Continue to integrate cultural resources into everyday planning processes through careful and creative collaborative design review and prioritization of historic and cultural history in new design development.

Policy RM-3.3: Funding. With input and involvement of multiple stakeholder groups, seek adequate funding and support from public and private sources that aim to protect cultural and historic resources within the City.

Policy RM-3.4: Public Education. Educate and actively involve the public in preserving historic cultural assets, including techniques, incentives, and legal requirements for preservation.

Policy RM-3.6: Resource Evaluation. Evaluate the condition of historical buildings, the costs of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of preservation or conservation alternatives when considering the demolition or movement of historic structures; when possible, encourage the adaptive re-use of the historic structure.

Policy RM -3.7: Specific Plans and Municipal Code Provision s. Adhere to the preservation procedures and provisions included in the City’s adopted Specific Plans and La Verne Municipal Code, and State Historical Building Codes.

Page 144 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 51 of 305 ends

Action RM-3.2: City staff shall require applicants for future proposed projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria a re met, detailed mitigation recommendations are required as part of the technical study. All work will be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Action RM-3.5: Continue to implement the preservation procedures and provisions of the La Verne Municipal Code and adopted specific plans and require the inclusion of preservation-sensitive policies in new specific plans, as appropriate.

Action RM-3.6: Maintain a current list of selected buildings and sites of outstanding local importance until such time that the city has an ordinance and a local register and/or places the buildings and sites on the California Register of Historical Resources.

Action RM-3.7: Provide consultation with a restoration architect serving as an adjunct to staff to assist with preservation-related design issues. Include historic preservation-related design issues.

Action RM-3.12: Offer Mills Act agreements (contracts between the City and owners of designated historic resources enabling the owners to receive property tax breaks) to owners of exemplary historic resources who will use the funds to provide the highest standards of restoration and maintenance.

Action RM-3.14: Require preservation plans for significant properties where demolition of structures, including outbuildings, are proposed.

Action RM -3.15: Maintain an information repository on proper maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration techniques to assist owners and developers of historic buildings.

Action RM-3.16: Maintain current information about tax credits, property tax assistance, and other financial incentives for preservation
Action RM-3.17: Develop ordinances to protect historic buildings from demolition or alteration at the time of a natural disaster.

2. Archeological Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact CUL-2, pages 5.4-30 through 5.4- 33)
Explanation: Redevelopment and development of previously undeveloped areas have the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources.

Typically, surface -level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits

Page 145 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 52 of 305 ends

can be affected by ground -disturbing activities associated with most types of construction.

The records search conducted as part of the Cultural/ Paleontological Resources Assessment identified 83 previously recorded cultural resources, including seven prehistoric archaeological sites, one prehistoric archaeological isolate, and two multicomponen t archaeological sites.

Effects on archaeological resources deemed to be significant could be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a resource would be materially impaired. While the General Plan Update does not directly propose site -specific development with the potential to directly impact archaeological resources, future development allowed under the General Plan Update could cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the significance of known or unknown archaeological resources.

This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing heritage resources, including archaeological resources. Policy RM -3.1 directs the City to promote community identity and local history by identifying, docu menting, and appropriately archiving tangible and intangible cultural resources so they can be recognized, accessed, and appreciated by future generations. Policy RM-3.2 continues to integrate cultural resources into everyday planning processes through car eful and creative collaborative design review and prioritization of historic and cultural history in new design development.

Policy RM-3.9 requires projects with a potential to affect archeological or paleontological resources to be conditioned to immediat ely stop grading and/or excavation activities if archeological or paleontological resources are encountered. At this point, a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist approved by the City should be enlisted to investigate the resources and conduct a prelimin ary assessment to determine whether a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program will be required. Action RM -3.3 requires applicants for future proposed projects in areas of known or inferred archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic, to provi de a technical cultural resources assessment consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified archaeologist. If resources are known or reasonably anticipated, the recommendations shall provide a detailed mitigation plan which shall require monitoring during grading and other earthmoving activities in undisturbed sediments, provide a treatment plan for potential resources that includes data to be collected, requires professional identific ation, other special studies as appropriate, requires curation at an accredited museum such as the Cultural and Natural History Collections of the University of La Verne for artifacts meeting significance criteria, requires a comprehensive final mitigation compliance report

Page 146 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 53 of 305 ends

including a catalog of specimens with museum numbers and an appendix containing a letter from the museum stating that they are in possession of the materials.

Archaeological resources are protected under federal, State, and local regulations as described above in Section 5.4.3 and implementation of General Plan Update policies and actions would reduce potential adverse impacts to archaeological resources associa ted with future development.

Additionally, subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process.

Therefore, wit h compliance with the General Plan Update policies and actions and existing regulations, the General Plan Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-3: Cultural Resources. A City that celebrates and preserves its rich culture and historic assets.

Policy RM-3.4: Public Education. Educate and actively involve the public in preserving historic cultural assets, including techniques, incentives, and legal requirements for preservation.

Policy RM-3.8: Innovation. With input and involvement of multiple stakeholder groups, provide innovative means of preservation that reduce costs and facilitate desirable preservation of the City’s cultural and historic resources.

Page 147 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 54 of 305 ends

by the City should be enlisted to investigate the resources and conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program will be required.

Action RM-3.3: City staff shall require applicants for future proposed projects in areas of known or inferred archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic, to provide a technical cultural resources assessment consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified archaeologist. If resources are known or reason ably anticipated the recommendations shall provide a detailed mitigation plan which shall require monitoring during grading and other earthmoving activities in undisturbed sediments, provide a treatment plan for potential resources that includes data to be collected, requires professional identification, other special studies as appropriate, requires curation at an accredited museum such as the Cultural and Natural History Collections of the University of La Verne for artifacts meeting significance criteria, requires a comprehensive final mitigation compliance report including a catalog of specimens with museum numbers and an appendix containing a letter from the museum stating that they are in possession of the materials.

Action RM-3.11: Consistently consider archeological resources (historic and prehistoric) at the initial study stage of a development and consult with the regional Historical Resources Information Center at the University of California at Los Angeles.

3. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact CUL-3, pages 5.4-33 through 5.4- 34)
Explanation: Future construction projects within the Planning Area could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains, as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. In the event t hat human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the County coroner must be called in to assess the remains (Section 15064.5[e] of the CEQA Guidelines). If the County coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours, and the provisions for treating or disposing of the remains and any associated grave goods, as described in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, must be followed.

Page 148 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 55 of 305 ends

The General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes actions addressing the potential discovery of human remains. Policy RM -3.10 ensures that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensures compliance with the provisions of Cali fornia Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. Policy RM -3.11 requires that, consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18 and AB 52, the City shall consult as necessary with Nati ve American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes. Action RM -3.4 states that unanticipated discoveries of human remains shall require immediate cessation of ground disturbance and notification to City staff a nd shall follow State law as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process.

Compliance with the General Plan Update policies and actions and existing regulations, including Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98, would ensure that potential impacts associated with the inadvertent discovery of human remains would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-3: Cultural Resources. A City that celebrates and preserves its rich culture and historic assets.

Policy RM-3.10: Human Remains. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Policy RM -3.11: Tribal Consultation. Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18 and AB 52, the City shall consult as necessary with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Page 149 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 56 of 305 ends

Action RM -3.4: Unanticipated discoveries of human remains shall require immediate cessation of ground disturbance and notification to City staff and shall follow state law as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

E. ENERGY

1. Energy
Threshold: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact EN-1 pages 5.5-9 through 5.5-15) Explanation: The proposed Project is the General Plan Update, with a horizon year of 2045. Buildout of the General Plan includes residential, commercial, office, industrial, mixed -use, open space, and other land uses (see Section 3.0, Project Description for further de tail). The amount of energy used in the Planning Area at buildout would directly correlate to the type and size of development, the energy consumption associated with unit appliances, outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other buildings and activities. Other major sources of Planning Area energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during construction and operational activities, and fuel used by off -road and on -road construction vehicles during construction. The following discussion provides calculated levels of energy use expected for future development accommodated by the General Plan Update, based on commonly used modelling software (i.e.

CalEEMod v.2022.1 and the California Air Resource Board’s EMFAC2021). The following an alysis provides an estimate of the energy consumption in the Planning Area in buildout year 2045.

Electricity and Natural Gas
At 2045 buildout, the City of La Verne’s electricity and natural gas consumption would be used primarily to power buildings (all types of buildings, including residential, commercial, office, industrial, public, etc.).

Total annual electricity (kWh) and na tural gas (kBTU) usage associated with operational activities at proposed project buildout are shown in Table

5.5-1, Maximum Regional Construction Emissions (pounds/day), (as provided by CalEEMod). The analysis performed uses a 2045 buildout for a 20-year planning horizon.

According to CalEEMod’s Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod, CalEEMod uses the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) database to develop energy intensity value for non -residential

Page 150 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 57 of 305 ends

buildings. The energy use from residential land uses is calculated based on the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS). Similar to CEUS, this is a comprehensive energy use assessment that includes the end use for various climate zones in California.

Fuel Consumption-On-Road Vehicles (Operation)
Implementation of the General Plan Update would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix F), total VMT associated with the City of La Verne and its Sphere of Influence as a result of implementation of the General Plan Update (in addition to existing development) could generate up to 1,509,493 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day; however, the Project itself does not propose any specific development. In order to calcul ate operational on-road vehicle energy usage and emissions, default trip lengths generated by CalEEMod were used, which are based on the Planning Area location and urbanization level parameters (i.e., “Los Angeles County”).

These values are provided by the individual districts or use a default average for the state, depending on the location of the project. Based on Year 2045 gasoline and diesel miles per gallon (MPG) factors for individual vehicle classes as provided by EMFAC2021, a weighted MPG factor was derived for operational on -road vehicles of approximately 26.5 MPG for gasoline vehicles and 15.0 MPG for diesel vehicles. With this information, as a conservative estimate, it was calculated that on -road vehicle energy usage in the Planning Area at buildout year 2045 would be approximately 52,994 gallons of gasoline per day and 7,168 gallons of diesel fuel per day, on average, or 19,342,644 annual gallons of gasoline and 2,616,379 annual gallons of diesel fuel annually.

Fuel Consumption-On-Road Vehicles (Construction)
2045 buildout of the General Plan would also generate on-road vehicle trips during construction activities (from construction workers, vendors, and haulers). Estimates of vehicle fuel consumed were derived based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths, and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod (v 2022.1), and Year 2025 gasoline and diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2021. Table 5.5 -2, On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase, describes gasoline and diesel fuel used by on -road mobile sources during each phase of the construction schedule. As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction activities during buildout of the General Plan Update would occur during the building construction phase.

Off-Road Vehicles (Construction)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during construction

Page 151 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 58 of 305 ends

activities. A non-exhaustive list of off-road constructive vehicles expected to be used during construction activities includes: cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by buildout of the General Plan Update (as provided by the CalEEMod output in Appendix B), and a CO2 to diesel fuel conversion factor (provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), future development as a result of implementation of th e General Plan Update could use up to a total of 843,105 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles (during the demolition, site preparation and grading phases); however, the Project itself does not propose any specific development.

Compliance with Statewide and Local Energy Plans
Buildout of the General Plan Update would use energy resources for the operation of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from off -road construction activities (e.g. diesel fuel) associated with 2045 buildout of the General Plan Update.

Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources.

Developers of individual projects within the Planning Area would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would rel y heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures.

Buildout of the General Plan Update would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, SCE is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. In addition, new development would be required to install on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, consistent with the latest version of Title 24; this would greatly reduce the amount of electricity needed to be sent from the grid to the new developments associated with the proposed Project.

SCE is expected to achieve at least 60 percent renewables by 2030, and 100 percent zero -carbon electricity by 2045 (in compliance with Senate Bill 100). Additionally, energy -saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“Part 6”), would be applicable to future development accommodated by the General Plan Update. Other Statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy -duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g ., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

Furthermore, additional project -specific the sustainability fe atures individual development projects could further energy consumption of

Page 152 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 59 of 305 ends

individual projects. The General Plan Update would also be in compliance with the planning documents described previously within this section.

The General Plan Update would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. This is a less than significant impact, in this regard.

Conclusion
The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to support energy conservation and renewable energy, as well as reducing energy use. The proposed General Plan Update Resource Management Element includes Goal RM-6 and related policies and actions, which address sustainable use of energy resources. Policy RM-6.1 requires development projects to meet all State and regional regulations with regards to gas and energy, including CALGreen. Policy RM-6.2 directs the City to promote energy sustainability and conservation in new development projects. Action RM -6.1 directs the City to develop and implement strategies in coordination with energy and natural gas providers to reduce residential and nonresidential energy use.

Action RM-6.2 directs the City to use the project review process to ensure that all new development complies with State energy requirements. In addition, the proposed
As a result, the General Plan Update would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for during General Plan Update buildout, including during construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. The City would comply with all existing energy standards and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For the reasons stated above, buildout of the General Plan Update would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

This is a less than significant impact.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal LU -1: Land Use Mix. A City with a land use plan that supports a diverse, self - sufficient community that offers a variety of housing types, job opportunities, institutional uses, community facilities, commercial services and recreational opportunities.

Policy LU-1.1: Land Use Pattern. Provide for an overall mix of housing, employment, service, and recreational opportunities that promotes efficient development and multimodal choices; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and

Page 153 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 60 of 305 ends

other resources; ensures compatibility between uses; enhances community livability and public health; and sustains economic vitality.

Policy LU-1.9: Growth Pattern. Strongly encourage new development to occur in infill locations in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses and transportation facilities.

Goal LU -3: Residential Development. A community that preserves and protects its residential neighborhoods.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-6: Energy and Mineral Resources. A community that protects its energy and mineral resources for future generations.

Policy RM-6.1: Regulatory Compliance. Meet all state and regional regulations in regard to gas and energy conservation and technology use, including the mandatory energy efficiency requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.

Policy RM-6.2: Reduced Consumption. Promote energy sustainability and conservation in order to reduce consumption of natural resources and promote air quality.

Policy RM-6.3: Alternative Energy Use. Regularly evaluate the viability of alternative energy sources for their application in La Verne.

Policy RM -6.4: Green Building. Support the use of green building standards and sustainable development strategies, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), in both private and public projects.

Policy RM-6.5: Regional Conservation. Participate in regional alternative energy supply movements and transition when financially feasible.

Policy RM-6.6: Public Education. Coordinate with local utility companies to increase public awareness of energy conservation practices and programs, such as rebate programs and energy efficiency audits.

Action RM -6.1: Develop and implement strategies, in coordination with energy and natural gas providers, to reduce residential and nonresidential energy use. These strategies could include requiring existing development to meet specified conservation standards and requiring new development to utilize energy reduction strategies during construction and operation.

Action RM -6.2: Use the project review process to ensure that all new development complies with California State Energy Regulation requirements.

Action RM-6.3: Work with energy providers, schools, the University of La Verne, and other agencies and organizations on outreach programs to promote energy conservation for

Page 154 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 61 of 305 ends

residential and nonresidential uses.

Action RM-6.4: Prepare a package of information that is made available at the public counter on alternative energy that describes the technology and identifies financial and nonfinancial resources available for residents and business owners to assist them in implementing alternative energy programs.

Goal RM-8: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Improved air quality in La Verne and the region through reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Policy RM-8.1: Development Patterns. Improve air quality through continuing to require a development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locates new housing near places of employment, encourages alternative modes of transportation, supports efficient parking strategies, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and requires projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Policy RM-8.4: Local Reduction Targets. The City of La Verne establishes the following per capita GHG reduction targets, in order to meet the requirements established by the state under AB 32 and SB 32, consistent with the CARB’s Scoping Plan:
• 3.99 MT CO2e per capita by 2030
• 2.66 MT CO2e per capita by 2040; and
• 1.33 MT CO2e per capita by 2050.

Policy RM-8.10: GHG Reduction. Consider and adopt new policies and programs that will help to provide energy efficient alternatives to fossil fuel use and reduce consumption in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Action RM-8.4: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the La Verne Municipal Code.

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Seismic Hazards
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

Page 155 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 62 of 305 ends

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS-1 pages 5.6-22 through 5.6- 24)
Explanation: The Planning Area, like the rest of southern California, is situated within a seismically active region as the result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific Plates. Development associated with the General Plan Update could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture, stro ng seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction), and seismic-related landslides.

The Planning Area is located in the seismically active southern California region, but not within an Earthquake Study Zone defined by the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Hazards Act. However, there are a number of faults that intersect the Planning Area includin g: the San Antonio Fault, the Sierra Madre Fault, and the Indian Hill Fault. Figure 5.6 -1 illustrates the location of these faults. Rupture of any of these faults, or of an unknown fault in the region, could cause seismic ground shaking. As a result, future development in the City may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with a seismic event, including strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.

All future development projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which requires development projects to perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with state law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, utilizing earthquake -resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future development and infrastructure projects are consid ered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity.

In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan Update includes goals, policies, and actions intended to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity.

Public Safety Element Policy PS -3.1 maint ains and updates the City’s geologic and seismic hazards map in concert with updates from the CGS and local surveys. Policy PS-3.3 enforces development requirements, such as seismic study analyses, project siting, and project design features for proposed d evelopments near active faults pursuant to the Alquist -Priolo Act. Policy PS -3.4 ensures adherence to the latest building codes and

Page 156 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 63 of 305 ends

regulations regulating earthwork and grading during construction. Policy PS-3.6 requires that critical infrastructure and facilities that exist or may be built in the City (e.g., police, medical facilities, fire, roads, reservoirs, etc.), incorporate site specific seismic structural design. Policy PS-3.9 encourages owners of potentially hazardous buildings (e.g., mobile homes and historic structures) to assess seismic vulnerability and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve resistance to earthquakes. Action PS-3.2 directs the City to update building, zoning, and grading codes, as needed, to ensure adopted standards mitigate potential seismic hazards and comply with the Alquist-Priolo Act and Unreinforced Masonry Law.

Development projects are reviewed to address seismic safety issues and would be required to provide adequate mitigation for existing and potential hazards identified. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as appli cable State and City codes and requirements, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including rupture of an earthquake fault, would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Policy PS-3.1: Geologic Hazard Identification. Maintain and continuously update the City’s geologic and seismic hazards map in concert with updates from the California Geologic Survey and local surveys.

Policy PS-3.3: Alquist-Priolo Act. Enforce development requirements, such as seismic study analyses, project siting, and project design features for proposed developments near active faults pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Act.

Policy PS -3.4: Building Codes. Adhere to the latest California Building Codes and regulations regulating earth work and grading during construction, and hillside grading guidelines to minimize erosion; update local codes periodically for the latest advances.

Policy PS-3.6: Critical Infrastructure and Facilities. Require that critical infrastructure and facilities that exist or may be built in the city (e.g., police, medical facilities, fire, roads, reservoirs, etc.), incorporate site specific seismic structural design.

Policy PS -3.9: Retrofitting Buildings. Encourage owners of potentially hazardous buildings (e.g., mobile homes and historic structures) to assess seismic vulnerability and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve resistance to earthquakes.

Policy PS-3.10: Historic Hazards. Discourage development in identified potential and

Page 157 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 64 of 305 ends

historical landslide and flood plain areas which cannot be mitigated through regulation.

Action PS -3.1: Review development proposals to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind.

Action PS-3.2: Update building, zoning, and grading codes as needed to ensure adopted standards mitigate potential seismic hazards and comply with the Alquist -Priolo Act and Unreinforced Masonry Law.

2. Seismic Related Events including Liquefaction.

Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS-2, pages 5.6-24 through 5.6- 27)
Explanation: Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. As shown in Figure 5.6-2, portions of the Planning Area include delineated areas where liquefaction could occur during a strong earthquake. The area designated as having the potential for liquefaction is located in the southern portion of the City, south of Arrow Highway, and in the northwest portion of the Planning Area, near San Dimas Wash. A total of approximately 444 acres of the City are delineated as having a high potential for liquefaction.

Seismically induced landslides are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. Landslide potential is influenced by physical factors, such as slope, soil, vegetation, and precipitation. Landslides require a slope, and can occur naturally from seis mic activity, excessive saturation, and wildfires, or from human-made conditions such as construction disturbance, vegetation removal, wildfires, etc. Figure 5.6 -5 illustrates the landslide potential (for non -seismically included potential) in the vicinity of the Planning Area. Given the relatively level slopes throughout the southern portion of the Planning Area, the landslide potential is low. However, the landslide potential increases in the northern portion of the Planning Area, which contains areas wit h increased elevation change. Figure 5.6 -6 shows earthquake-induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped within the Planning Area. The northern portion of the City and the SOI, generally north of Baseline Road, is more susceptible to earthquake induced la ndslides.

Susceptibility becomes higher moving northward, up into the foothills and San Gabriel Mountains.

All projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the CBSC, which requires development projects to perform geotechnical investigations

Page 158 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 65 of 305 ends

in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, and use earthquake-resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future d evelopment and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure would also be analyzed for poten tial environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions intended to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity. Public Safety Element Policy PS -3.1 maintains an d updates the City’s geologic and seismic hazards map in concert with updates from the CGS and local surveys. Policy PS-3.2 requires, in Hillside Development areas, a full site - specific geologic study to consider effects of the proposed development on adjacent upslope and downslope areas, as well as on the site itself. Policy PS-3.3 enforces development requirements, such as seismic study analyses, project siting, and project design features for proposed developments near active faults pursuant to the Alqui st-Priolo Act. Policy PS -3.4 ensures adherence to the latest building codes and regulations regulating earthwork and grading during construction. Policy PS -3.6 requires critical infrastructure and facilities that exist or may be built in the City (e.g., police, medical facilities, fire, roads, reservoirs, etc.) to incorporate site -specific seismic structural design. Policy PS-3.7 requires special site-specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur. Policy PS-3.9 encourages owners of potentially hazardous buildings (e.g., mobile homes and historic structures) to assess seismic vulnerability and c onduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve resistance to earthquakes. Action PS -3.1 requires review of development proposals to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requi res that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces, such as earthquakes and wind. Action PS-3.2 directs the City to update building, zoning, and grading codes, as needed, to ensure adopted standards mitigate potential seismic haza rds and comply with the Alquist - Priolo Act and Unreinforced Masonry Law.

All future projects would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to seismic safety and building design requirements, as well as being subject to CEQA review to address site-specific seismic safety issues. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City regulations and codes, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including seismic ground shaking,

Page 159 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 66 of 305 ends

liquefaction, landslides, or seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Policy PS-3.2: Hillside Development. In Hillside Development areas (as shown in Map PS-1), require a full site -specific geologic study to consider effects of the proposed development on adjacent upslope and downslope areas as well as on the site itself.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Policy PS-3.7: Liquefaction. Require special site -specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction (shown in Map PS-2) to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

Policy PS-3.9: Retrofitting Buildings. Encourage owners of potentially hazardous buildings (e.g., mobile homes and historic structures) to assess seismic vulnerability and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve resistance to earthquakes.

Policy PS-3.10: Historic Hazards. Discourage development in identified potential and historical landslide and flood plain areas which cannot be mitigated through regulation.

Page 160 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 67 of 305 ends

3. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant (Draft EIR, Impact GS-3, pages 5.6-27 through 5.6- 29)
Explanation: The General Plan Update would allow for future development and improvement projects that could involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground -disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after proj ect construction. Construction - related erosion could result in the loss of a substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters. This is considered a potentially significant impact, whi ch would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below.

As noted previously, soil erosion data for the City of La Verne was obtained from the NRCS. As identified by the NRCR web soil survey, the erosion factor K within the City varies widely from low erosion potential to moderately high erosion potential. The N RCS does not provide erosion factors for the urban land soils in the City; however, the erosion potential for the urban land soils in the City is considered to be low.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, La Verne Municipal Code, and other regulations. In compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimi nation System (NPDES) Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Po llution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control best management practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction -related pollutants. The SWPPP would include project-specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

The General Plan Update includes a range of policies related to BMPs, NPDES requirements, and minimizing discharge of materials (including

Page 161 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 68 of 305 ends

eroded soils) into the storm drain system. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan Update, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

LAND USE ELEMENT
Goal LU -4: Hillside Development. A community defined by safe and subtle hillside development.

Policy LU-4.2: Natural Grading. Encourage natural grading techniques that blend with existing topography; grading should use rounded contours on slopes to minimize disturbance. Encourage the preservation of the physical shape of the hillside and views where feasible.

Policy LU -4.3: Constraints. Analyze and consider development constraints when reviewing new development applications.

Policy LU -4.4: Site Design Techniques. To the extent feasible, require the implementation of strategic site and building design techniques to shield new hillside development from view from the valley floor below.

Policy LU-4.5: Slope Levels. Prohibit development in areas with a natural slope of 25 percent or greater; roads to service development may be permitted in these areas if they are designed to minimize visibility and grading scars.

Policy LU-4.6: Pad Grading. Discourage conventional flat pad grading in hillside areas exceeding 10 percent slope.

Policy LU -4.8: Subdivision Ordinance and Hillside Ordinance. Enforce the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and Hillside Development Overlay Zone Ordinance, which establish standards for grading along ridgelines, saddles, knolls, canyons, and other significant topographic features.

Policy LU-4.9: Elevation Level. Deny development above the 1780’ elevation line unless it can be concealed from offsite view and it can be proven that adequate sewer and water service can be provided

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS -2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Page 162 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 69 of 305 ends

Policy PS-3.4: Building Codes. Adhere to the latest California Building Codes and regulations regulating earth work and grading during construction, and hillside grading guidelines to minimize erosion; update local codes periodically for the latest advances.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Policy PS -3.7: Liquefaction. Require special site -specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction (shown in Map PS-2) to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

4. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS-4, pages 5.6-29 through 5.6- 32)
Explanation: Development allowed under the General Plan Update could result in the exposure of people and structures to conditions that have the potential for adverse effects associated with ground instability or failure. Soils and geologic conditions in the Planning A rea have the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Each are discussed below:

With respect to on - or off -site landslide risk, Figure 5.6 -5 illustrates the landslide potential (for non-seismically included potential) in the vicinity of the Planning Area. Given the relatively level slopes throughout the southern and central portions o f the Planning Area, the landslide potential is low.

However, the landslide potential increases in the northern portion of the Planning Area, which contains areas with increased elevation change (the San Gabriel Mountains).

Figure 5.6 -6 depicts earthquake -induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped within the Planning Area. Susceptibility increases moving northward, up into the foothills and San Gabriel Mountains.

Lateral spreading generally is a phenomenon where blocks of intact, non - liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied substrate of large areal extent.

The potential for lateral spreading is present where open banks and

Page 163 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 70 of 305 ends

unsupported cut slopes provide a free face (unsupported vertical slope face).

Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes. The greatest potential for lateral spreading is in the hilly terrain in the north of the Planning Area.

With respect to subsidence, the canyon bottom areas and flatter, southerly portions of the City, including a majority of the urban development areas, are most likely to have subsidence, or earthquake-induced settlement, occur.

With respect to liquefaction, as discussed above and as shown in Figure 5.6- 2, portions of the Planning Area include delineated areas where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. The area designated as having the potential for liquefaction is located in the southern portion of the City, south of Arrow Highway, and in the northwest portion of the Planning Area, near San Dimas Wash. A total of approximately 444 acres in the City are delineated as having a high potential for liquefaction.

Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene -age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run -off events. Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Existing alluvium within the Planning Area may be susceptible to collapse and excessive settlement, which could create the risk of hydro consolidation if these soils were exposed to excessive moisture.

Conclusion
The risk associated with construction and operation of future development projects on unstable soil units could result in potentially significant impacts, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project wound undergo site -specific evaluations for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.

Future development and infrastructure projects would also be required to comply with applicable regulations related to seismic safety and building design requirements to reduce potential impacts related to unstable soils, as well as being analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Future development and improvement projects would be required to have site -specific geotechnical studies prepared and incorporated into the project design, consistent with the requirements of the applicable State and City regulations and codes. In addition to the

Page 164 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 71 of 305 ends

requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to ensure that development projects address potential geologic hazards, that at -risk buildings and infrastructure are evaluated for potentia l risks, and site - specific studies are completed for areas subject to liquefaction or other risks associated with unstable soils. With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with ground instability or failure would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Policy PS-3.4: Building Codes. Adhere to the latest California Building Codes and regulations regulating earth work and grading during construction, and hillside grading guidelines to minimize erosion; update local codes periodically for the latest advances.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Policy PS -3.7: Liquefaction. Require special site -specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction (shown in Map PS-2) to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

Policy PS-3.10: Historic Hazards. Discourage development in identified potential and historical landslide and flood plain areas which cannot be mitigated through regulation.

Page 165 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 72 of 305 ends

5. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tables 18 -1- D of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS-5, pages 5.6-32 through 5.6- 33)
Explanation: Expansive soil properties can cause substantial damage to building foundations, piles, pavements, underground utilities, and/or other improvements. Structural damage, such as warping and cracking of improvements, and rupture of underground utility lines, m ay occur if the expansive potential of soils is not considered during the design and construction of all improvements.

Linear extensibility is a method for measuring expansion potential. The expansion potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than three percent; moderate if three to six percent; high if six to nine percent; and very high if more than nine percent. If the linear extensibility is more than three percent, shrinking and swelling could cause damage to buildings, roads, other structures and to plant roots, and site -specific design considerations would usually be required.

The linear extensibility of the soils within the Planning Area ranges from low to high. Figure 3.6-4 illustrates the shrink-swell potential of soils in the Planning Area. The majority of the Planning Area has low potential for expansive soils, including most of the developed land areas. The areas with moderate to high potential for expansive soils represent only a very small portion of the Planning Area and would require special design considerations due to shrink -swell potentials. This is considered a potentially significant impact, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of the policies and actions listed below.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.

Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to seismic safety and building design requirements to reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils, as well as undergoing analysis related to potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

The Public Safety Element of the General Plan Update establishes policies that are designed to protect from geologic hazards, including expansive soils. Consistency with the General Plan Update policies would require

Page 166 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 73 of 305 ends

identification of geologic hazards and risk inventory of existing potentially hazardous buildings and infrastructure. As required by the CBSC, a site - specific geotechnical investigation would identify the potential for damage related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill and engineered fill. If a risk is identified, design criteria and specification options may include removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill material that is de signed to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink -swell cycles and settlements.

Design criteria and specifications set forth in project -specific design-level geotechnical investigations would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils are minimized. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Policy PS -3.7: Liquefaction. Require special site -specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction (shown in Map PS-2) to determine the nature and extent of possible liquefaction and to identify engineering and development siting measures to permit development to occur.

Policy PS-3.10: Historic Hazards. Discourage development in identified potential and historical landslide and flood plain areas which cannot be mitigated through regulation.

6. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS -6, pages 5.6-33 through 5.6- 35)

Page 167 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 74 of 305 ends

Explanation: As described in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, wastewater services in La Verne are managed by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD). The wastewater collection system for the City is owned and operated by the City and LACSD.

Because of varying soil characteristics throughout the Planning Area, some areas may have moderate to severe limitations on the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. To the extent that future development under the General Plan Upd ate would occur in such areas, there is the potential for effects to soils that may not adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. However, any individual project which would have a septic system would be required to comply with the CSBC, which requires development projects to perform site-specific geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law to determine if on -site soil conditions are suitable for a septic system. Such projects would also adhere to Mu nicipal Code Section 16.28.380, Private sewage disposal permitted when, which states that when and where the City determines a connection to a public sewerage system would be impractical, septic tanks and other private means of sewage disposal may be insta lled subject to approval by the City Health Department. Additionally, future developments proposing a septic system must also comply with the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, the General Plan, La Verne Municipal Code, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Future development and improvement projects would be required to have site-specific geotechnical study prepared and incorporated into the proposed project’s design, consistent with the requirements of applicable State and City regulations and codes. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to ensure that developme nt projects address potential geologic hazards, at-risk buildings and infrastructure are evaluated for potential risks, and site -specific studies are completed, as applicable.

With the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan Update, as well as applicable State and City regulations and codes, potential impacts associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS -2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best

Page 168 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 75 of 305 ends

management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Goal PS-3: Seismic Safety and Geologic Hazards. A community that has reduced risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and liquefaction.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Policy PS-3.9: Retrofitting Buildings. Encourage owners of potentially hazardous buildings (e.g., mobile homes and historic structures) to assess seismic vulnerability and conduct seismic retrofitting as necessary to improve resistance to earthquakes.

Policy PS-3.10: Historic Hazards. Discourage development in identified potential and historical landslide and flood plain areas which cannot be mitigated through regulation.

7. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact GS-7, pages 5.6-35 through 5.6- 38)
Explanation: Definition of Significance for Paleontological Resources Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered to be significant if one or

Page 169 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 76 of 305 ends

more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and
paleozoological biotas;

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial
exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations; and

6. All identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered significant due to the rarity of their preservation.

As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and te rrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and invertebrate animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important.

Paleontological Sensitivity
The following section is based on the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the City of La Verne General Plan Update (Cogstone 2018).

Of all the formations present within the City, only the Pleistocene deposits have the potential to contain fossils and have produced fossils relatively near to the City boundaries. No geologic units in the Planning Area are assigned as having a high or ve ry high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Impacts to Pleistocene alluvium more than eight feet below the original ground surface within southern California valleys are typically given a moderate but patchy sensitivity. Due to the paucity of fossil s

Page 170 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 77 of 305 ends

recovered from Pleistocene alluvium near the San Gabriel Mountains however, the level of sensitivity decreases to a moderate but unknown sensitivity. Low sensitivity is assigned to the Buzzard Peak Conglomerate of the Topanga Group, the volcanic conglomera te of the Glendora Volcanics, conglomerates of the Puente Formation, non-landslide Holocene sediments, and the very coarse-grained Pleistocene deposits found north of the 210 Freeway. Very low sensitivity is assigned to the artificial fill, the landslide d eposits, most of the Glendora Volcanics, and the Cretaceous though Proterozoic plutonic and metamorphic rocks.

Conclusion
It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. However, potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of the policies and actions established in the General Plan Update; specifically, Resource Management Policy 3.9 and its subsequent Action 1, require a qualified paleontologist to investigate resources found during construction activities. During such investigations, construction actives are halted until the investigation is complete, at which point it would be determined whether a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program would be required, or if construction activities can resume as originally planned. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would ensure that steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. As such, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM-3: Cultural Resources. A City that celebrates and preserves its rich culture and historic assets.

Policy RM -3.9: Archaeological/Paleontological Resources. Require projects with a potential to affect archeological or paleontological resources to be conditioned to immediately stop grading and/or excavation activities if archeological or paleontological resources are encountered. At this point, a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist approved by the City should be enlisted to investigate the resources and conduct a preliminary assessment to determine whether a resource mitigation plan and monitoring progr am will be required.

Action RM -3.1: City staff shall require applicants for future proposed projects with planned impacts greater than 5 feet below the current surface in undisturbed sediments

Page 171 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 78 of 305 ends

ranked PFYC 3 or above to provide a technical paleontological assessment consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified paleontologist. If resources are known or reasonably anticipate d the recommendations shall provide a detailed mitigation plan which shall require monitoring during grading and other earthmoving activities in undisturbed sediments, provides a fossil recovery protocol that includes data to be collected, requires professional identification, radiocarbon dates and other special studies as appropriate, requires curation at an accredited museum such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History for fossils meeting significance criteria, requires a comprehensive final mitigation compliance report including a catalog of fossil specimens with museum numbers and an appendix containing a letter from the museum stating that they are in possession of the fossils.

Action RM-3.3: City staff shall require applicants for future proposed projects in areas of known or inferred archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic, to provide a technical cultural resources assessment consisting of a record search, survey, background context and project specific recommendations performed by a qualified archaeologist. If resources are known or reasonably anticipated the recommendations shall provide a detailed mitigation plan which shall require monitoring during grading and oth er earthmoving activities in undisturbed sediments, provide a treatment plan for potential resources that includes data to be collected, requires professional identification, other special studies as appropriate, requires curation at an accredited museum s uch as the Cultural and Natural History Collections of the University of La Verne for artifacts meeting significance criteria, requires a comprehensive final mitigation compliance report including a catalog of specimens with museum numbers and an appendix containing a letter from the museum stating that they are in possession of the materials.

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-1, pages 5.8-16 through 5.8- 22)
Explanation: Many types of businesses utilize various chemicals and hazardous materials, and their routine business operations involve chemicals that are manufactured, warehoused, or transported. Implementation of the General Plan Update would accommodate the future development of both residential and non-residential uses. Increased development would result in an increase in the routine transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials in the Planning Area, potentially resulting in accidental releases. Risk of upset can involve scenarios that could adversely affect the public or the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials. Exposure of persons to hazardous materials could also occur through the operations of future

Page 172 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 79 of 305 ends

developments associated with the improper handling of hazardous materials/wastes, particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accident; environmentally unsound disposal methods; or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. Typical incidents that could create a hazard involve accidental releases of hazardous materials including accidents during transport causing a “spill” of a hazardous materials and/or natural disasters causing the unauthorized release of a substance. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, these and other types of incidents could cause contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater, in addition to any toxic vapors that might be generated. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depen ding on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.

The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, CUPAs, Cal OSHA, and the DTSC consistent with the requirements of federal, State, and local regulations and policies. Facilities that store h azardous materials on -site are required to maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., Police and F ire) would respond. All future projects allowed under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials. As future development and infrastructure projects are co nsidered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with hazardous materials, as required under CEQA.

In addition to the requirements associated with federal, State, and local regulations, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. Policy M -7.1 discourages truck traffic within residential neighborhoods. Policy M -7.3 maintains roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes. Action M -7.1 directs the City to update and implement the City’s Freight Routes Map to ensure it serves the City’s goods movement needs while considering the potential mobility conflicts and the location of sensitive land uses in the City. Policy PS -4.1 enforces the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous mate rials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created. Policy PS -4.2 requires facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; and incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan regarding siting, development controls, and review procedures. Policy PS -4.3 restricts the transpo rt of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes. Policy PS -4.4 works

Page 173 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 80 of 305 ends

with railroads to ensure rail safety along lines used to transport hazardous materials including emergency response procedures in the event of a rail accident involving hazardous materials. Policy PS -4.5 ensures that the LVFD can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS -4.6 ensures continued compliance with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy PS -

4.7 ensures continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Action PS-4.1 requires, as part of the development review process, projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level.

Action PS -4.2 requires the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LVFD. Policy PS -8.11 maintains and regularly upgrades a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies. Action PS -8.1 directs the City to regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly. Action PS -8.2 directs the City to regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

As described previously, hazardous materials regulations related to the use, handling, and transport of hazardous materials are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation set forth in the California Health and Safety Code. These laws were established at the State level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances.

These regulations must be implemented by employers/businesses, as appropriate, and are monitored by the State (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous waste) and/or the County. The haulers and users of hazardous materials are listed with and regulated and monitored by the Los Angeles County Fire Departm ent Health Hazardous Materials Division. Compliance with the requirements of federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage , or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-7.1: Truck Traffic on Local Streets. Continue to discourage truck traffic

Page 174 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 81 of 305 ends

within residential neighborhoods.

Policy M-7.2: Local Truck Routes. Maintain a network of local truck routes to facilitate goods movement to regional roads and to discourage the use of residential roads.

Policy M-7.3: Roadway Design. Maintain roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes.

Action M-7.1: Update and implement the City’s Freight Routes Map to ensure it serves the City’s goods movement needs while considering the potential mobility conflicts and the location of sensitive land uses in the City.

Action M-7.2: Require traffic index calculations (consistent with the State Department of Transportation) for construction on streets that are designated as truck routes, in order to provide structural sections that will accommodate the projected truck volumes.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-4: Hazardous Waste and Materials. A community that is protected from the potential for hazardous waste and materials contamination.

Policy PS -4.1: Regulations. Enforce the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created.

Policy PS-4.2: Mitigation Measures. Require facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in regard to siting, development controls, and review procedures.

Policy PS-4.3: Transport. Restrict the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes.

Policy PS-4.4: Railroad Safety. Work with railroads to ensure rail safety along lines used to transport hazardous materials including emergency response procedures in the event of a rail accident involving hazardous materials.

Policy PS-4.5: Emergency Response. Ensure that the Fire Department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City.

Policy PS-4.6: Regional Compliance. Continue to comply with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Policy PS-4.7: City Plans. Ensure continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Page 175 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 82 of 305 ends

Policy PS-4.8: Education. Prepare and distribute educational materials to the community regarding illegal dumping, the dangers of hazardous waste, and city and county hazardous waste management plans.

Action PS-4.1: As part of the development review process, require projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level.

Action PS -4.2: Continue to require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the Fire Department.

Action PS-4.3: Continue to promote off -site hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop-off.

Goal PS-8: Emergency Operations and Facilities. A community that is prepared for and responds effectively to natural and human-induced disasters and emergencies, minimizing loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.

Policy PS-8.3 Communication. Maintain proper communication protocols and procedures among emergency service providers; local, state, and federal government agencies; businesses; schools; utilities; and other relevant parties to ensure quick and efficient response in the event of an emergency.

Policy PS-8.4: Education. Prepare our community for comprehensive and efficient emergency response including safe and secure evacuation routes.

Policy PS -8.5: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services during and after emergencies.

Policy PS -8.6: Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a ran ge of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

Policy PS -8.11: Warning Systems. Maintain and regularly upgrade a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies.

Action PS-8.1: Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly.

Action PS-8.2: Regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

Page 176 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 83 of 305 ends

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy CSF-5.1: Provision of Services. Ensure that the Police and Fire Departments have adequate funding, staff, and equipment to accommodate existing and future growth in La Verne.

Policy CSF -5.2: Culture of Safety. Establish a culture of safety in La Verne by encouraging and supporting public safety programs that enhance safety and reduce crime through community policing, public education, youth crime prevention, and outreach programs.

Policy CSF -5.4: Department Consultation. Promote coordination between land use planning and urban design through consultation and coordination with the Police and Fire Departments during the review of new development applications.

Policy CSF-5.5: Fire Response Times. Plan for, track, and maintain acceptable response times, as determined by the La Verne Fire Department.

Policy CSF -5.6: Technology. Support efforts to improve police, fire, and emergency medical services through improved use of modern technology and industry best practices.

Policy CSF -5.7: Training. Support the Police and Fire Departments in their efforts to continue to provide staff training that enhances cultural sensitivity, increases community outreach efforts, emphasizes their community service role, and maintains and enhances positive rapport with the community.

Policy CSF-5.8: Roadway Design. Design and maintain roadways in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

Action CSF-5.1: The La Verne Fire Department and City Engineer will review proposed development projects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and other emergency response functions.

Action CSF-5.5: Prepare a comprehensive update of the City’s disaster awareness and emergency preparedness program.

Action CSF-5.6: Conduct annual disaster drills to train City staff and test the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and operational readiness of the Emergency Operations Center.

2. Hazardous Materials Release
Threshold: Would the project 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-2, pages 5.8-22 through 5.8- 29)

Page 177 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 84 of 305 ends

Explanation: Short-Term Construction -Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
The General Plan Update would enable development of new residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses. Construction activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Demolition: Specific development projects have not been identified as part of the General Plan Update. However, future development accommodated through implementation of the General Plan Update could involve the demolition of existing structures and buildings as areas within the City are redeveloped. As discussed above, the Planning Area includes existing development from and prior to the 1960s; therefore, the presence of lead - based paint, ACM, and/or other contaminants, which are typically present in buildings and structures constructed prior to 1978, are likely present in some structures. All demolition that could result in the release of ACMs or lead-based paint would be conducted according to federal and State regulations which govern the renovation and demolition of structures where ACMs and lead-based paint are present. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, if ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional in accordance with Title 8 of the CCR, Section 1532.1. If lead -based paint is found, abatement would be required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with existing regulations related to ACM and lead -based paint would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Soil and Groundwater Contamination in Unknown Contaminated Sites :

Future development accommodated through implementation of the General Plan Update could involve grading and excavation activities which could expose construction workers and the public to previously unknown hazardous substances present in the soil or gro undwater. Exposure to contaminants could occur if the contaminants migrated to surrounding areas or if contaminated zones were disturbed at the contaminated location.

Grading and excavation activities could also reveal previously unidentified underground storage tanks. Although underground storage tank removal activities could pose risks to workers and the public, potential risks would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division standards.

Page 178 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 85 of 305 ends

Potential impacts to groundwater would be dependent upon the type of contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release.

The public could also be exposed to hazardous materials if new development or redevelopment were to be located on a current or historical hazardous material site. There are no active cleanup sites within the Planning Area listed in the EnviroStor database. Two LUST sites within the Planning Area have an open status: Bracket Field, Pomona Police Heliport has a status of “Open – Verification Monitoring” as of October 2022, which means the remediation phases are essentially complete and a monitoring/sampling p rogram is occurring to confirm successful completion of cleanup at the site; and Shell Oil Gas Station has a status of “Open – Eligible for Closure” as of August 2022, which means corrective action at the site has been completed and the case is going throu gh the process of being closed. All other LUST sites in La Verne have a status of “Completed – Case Closed.” Future development associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would be reviewed at the project-level to determine whether any develo pment sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any development activities that may occur on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the regulatory agencies, such as DTSC and the Los Angeles RWQCB.

Policy PS -4.1 enforces the Uniform Fir e Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created.

Policy PS-4.2 requires facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to imple ment mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; and incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan regarding siting, development controls, and review procedures. Policy PS-

4.5 ensures that the LVFD can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS -4.6 ensures continued compliance with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy PS -4.7 ensures continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne. Action PS -4.1 requires, as part of the development review process, projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an ac ceptable level. Action PS -4.2 requires the submittal of

Page 179 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 86 of 305 ends

information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LVFD. Policy PS -8.11 maintains and regularly upgrades a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies.

Action PS-8.1 directs the City to regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly. Action PS -8.2 directs the City to regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures. Compliance with General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of on -site contamination to a less than significant level.

Long-Term Operations-Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Long-term operation activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The General Plan Update does not propose site-specific development; thus, specific hazardous materials that could be accidentally released cannot be predicted at this time. Typical incidents that could occur due to the accidental release of hazardous materials include leaking underground storage tanks, spills during transport, inappropriate storage or use, and/or natural disasters.

If not cleaned up immediately and completely, these and other types of incidents could cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated.

Depending on the nature and extent of the contaminat ion, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source.

Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.

The transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others are required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous m aterials are required to obtain permits from the EPA under RCRA, which gives the EPA the authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law govern the transportation of hazardous materials.

Locally, the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division is the CUPA for Los Angeles County and is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous

Page 180 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 87 of 305 ends

materials in Los Angeles County, including the Planning Area.

The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address potential accidental exposure of individuals as a consequence of unknown existing environmental contaminants. Policy M-7.1 discourages truck traffic within residential neighborhoods. Policy M -7.3 maintains roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes. Action M -7.1 directs the City to update and implement the City’s Freight Routes Map to ensure it serves the City’s goods movement needs while considering the potential mobility conflicts and the location of sensitive land uses in the City. Policy PS -4.1 enforces the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed an d precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created. Policy PS -4.2 requires facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; and incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan regarding siting, development controls, and review procedures. Policy PS -4.3 restricts the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated r outes. Policy PS -4.4 works with railroads to ensure rail safety along lines used to transport hazardous materials including emergency response procedures in the event of a rail accident involving hazardous materials. Policy PS -4.5 ensures that the LVFD can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS -4.6 ensures continued compliance with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy PS -

4.7 ensures continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Action PS -4.2 requires the submitt al of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LVFD. Policy PS -8.11 maintains and regularly upgrades a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies. Action PS -8.1 directs the City to regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly. Action PS -8.2 directs the City to regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws related to the transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents, and impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be

Page 181 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 88 of 305 ends

less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-7.1: Truck Traffic on Local Streets. Continue to discourage truck traffic within residential neighborhoods.

Policy M-7.2: Local Truck Routes. Maintain a network of local truck routes to facilitate goods movement to regional roads and to discourage the use of residential roads.

Policy M-7.3: Roadway Design. Maintain roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-4: Hazardous Waste and Materials. A community that is protected from the potential for hazardous waste and materials contamination.

Policy PS-4.3: Transport. Restrict the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes.

Policy PS-4.5: Emergency Response. Ensure that the Fire Department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a

Page 182 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 89 of 305 ends

spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City.

Policy PS-4.6: Regional Compliance. Continue to comply with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Policy PS-4.7: City Plans. Ensure continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Action PS-4.3: Continue to promote off -site hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop-off.

Policy PS -8.3: Communication. Maintain proper communication protocols and procedures among emergency service providers; local, state, and federal government agencies; businesses; schools; utilities; and other relevant parties to ensure quick and efficient response in the event of an emergency.

Policy PS-8.4: Education. Prepare our community for comprehensive and efficient emergency response including safe and secure evacuation routes.

Policy PS-8.5: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services during and after emergencies.

Policy PS-8.6: Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a ran ge of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

Policy PS -8.11: Warning Systems. Maintain and regularly upgrade a mass

Page 183 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 90 of 305 ends

communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies.

Action PS-8.1: Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly.

Action PS-8.2: Regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

Policy CSF-5.5: Fire Response Times. Plan for, track, and maintain acceptable response times, as determined by the La Verne Fire Department.

Policy CSF -5.6: Technology. Support efforts to improve police, fire, and emergency medical services through improved use of modern technology and industry best practices.

Policy CSF-5.8: Roadway Design. Design and maintain roadways in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

Action CSF-5.5: Prepare a comprehensive update of the City’s disaster awareness and emergency preparedness program.

Page 184 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 91 of 305 ends

3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-3, pages 5.8-29 through 5.8- 34)
Explanation: The City is served by a variety of preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools; refer to Section 5.13, Public Services & Recreation, of this EIR.

As noted above, future development under the General Plan Update could utilize, transport, store, or disp ose of hazardous materials during construction or operation. Excavation and grading activities associated with future development could expose the public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater, which would require remedi ation activities. Remediation, if any, would include potential transport of hazardous materials to an approved landfill facility. As a result, future development within the Planning Area could potentially emit or handle hazardous materials within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15186, School Facilities, requires that school projects, as well as projects proposed to be located near schools, examine potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances. Furthermore, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers or emitters would require evaluation and notification where potential hazardous materials handling and emissions could occur in proximity to existing schools.

7.1 discourages truck traffic within residential neighborhoods. Policy M-7.3 maintains roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes. Action M -7.1 directs the City to update and implement the City’s Freight Routes Map to ensure it serves the City’s goods movement needs while considering the potential mobility conflicts and the location of sensitive land uses in the City. Policy PS-4.1 enforces the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created.

Policy PS-4.2 requires facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; and incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in regard to siting, development controls, and review procedures. Policy PS-

Page 185 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 92 of 305 ends

4.3 restricts the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes. Policy PS-4.4 works with railroads to ensure rail safety along lines used to transport hazardous materials including emergency response procedures in the event of a rail acc ident involving hazardous materials.

Policy PS-4.5 ensures that the LVFD can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a secti on of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS -4.6 ensures continued compliance with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy PS-4.7 ensures continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release P lans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne. Action PS -4.1 requires, as part of the development review process, projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level. Action PS -4.2 requires the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LVFD. Policy PS -8.11 maintains and regularly upgrades a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communication technologies.

Action PS-8.1 directs the City to regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly. Action PS -8.2 directs the City to regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures. Implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mand ated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and the General Plan Update policies and actions would ensure that potential risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes in proximity to a school associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-7.1: Truck Traffic on Local Streets. Continue to discourage truck traffic within residential neighborhoods.

Policy M-7.2: Local Truck Routes. Maintain a network of local truck routes to facilitate goods movement to regional roads and to discourage the use of residential roads.

Policy M-7.3: Roadway Design. Maintain roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes.

Page 186 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 93 of 305 ends

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-4: Hazardous Waste and Materials. A community that is protected from the potential for hazardous waste and materials contamination.

Policy PS-4.1: Regulations. Enforce the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created.

Policy PS-4.3: Transport. Restrict the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes.

Policy PS-4.6: Regional Compliance. Continue to comply with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Policy PS-4.7: City Plans. Ensure continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Page 187 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 94 of 305 ends

Action PS-4.3: Continue to promote off -site hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop-off.

Policy PS-8.3: Communication. Maintain proper communication protocols and procedures among emergency service providers; local, state, and federal government agencies; businesses; schools; utilities; and other relevant parties to ensure quick and efficient response in the event of an emergency.

Policy PS -8.4: Education. Prepare our community for comprehensive and efficient emergency response including safe and secure evacuation routes.

Policy PS-8.6: Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a ra nge of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

Action PS-8.1: Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly.

Action PS-8.2: Regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

4. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-4, pages 5.8-34 through 5.8- 39)
Explanation: There is one location with a La Verne address that is listed in the Envirostor database, located at 1855 Carrion Road, off of Arrow Highway in southern

Page 188 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 95 of 305 ends

La Verne. The site was the historical location of Occidental Research Corporation. The contaminants were not specified; the cleanup status states “refer to RWQCB” (as of 1995). The potential contaminants of concern listed at this site include: other inorga nic solid waste; unspecified acid solution; unspecified solvent mixtures; and waste oil and mixed oil. There are no hazardous materials release sites located in the City of La Verne on the Cortese List. Future development associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would be evaluated at the project -level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any development activities occurring on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to undergo r emediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC and the Los Angeles RWQCB prior to construction.

The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials. Policy M -7.1 discourages truck traffic within residential neighborhoods. Policy M -7.3 maintains roadway design standards to facilitate a ccess to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes. Action M-7.1 directs the City to update and implement the City’s Freight Routes Map to ensure it serves the City’s goods movement needs while considering the potential mobility conflicts and the location of sensitive land uses in the City. Policy PS-4.1 enforces the Uniform Fire Code as it controls the use of hazardous materials, seeing that appropriate laws are followed and precautions are taken for the type and amount of haza rd being created. Policy PS -4.2 requires facilities that handle hazardous waste and materials to implement mitigation measures that reduce the risks associated with hazardous material production, storage, and disposal; and incorporate the standards of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan in regard to siting, development controls, and review procedures. Policy PS-4.3 restricts the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes. Policy PS-4.4 works with railroads to ensure rail safety along lines used to transport hazardous materials including emergency response procedures in the event of a rail accident involving hazardous materials. Policy PS -4.5 ensures that the LVFD can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS -4.6 ensures continued compliance with the Los Angeles Coun ty Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy PS -4.7 ensures continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne. Action PS -4.1 requires, as part of the development review proc ess, projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level. Action PS -4.2 requires the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manu facturing, storage, use,

Page 189 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 96 of 305 ends

transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the LVFD. Policy PS -8.11 maintains and regularly upgrades a mass communications system to effectively notify people during disasters and emergencies by using current communi cation technologies.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policy M-7.1: Truck Traffic on Local Streets. Continue to discourage truck traffic within residential neighborhoods.

Policy M-7.2: Local Truck Routes. Maintain a network of local truck routes to facilitate goods movement to regional roads and to discourage the use of residential roads.

Policy M-7.3: Roadway Design. Maintain roadway design standards to facilitate access to light industrial and manufacturing areas along designated truck routes.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-4: Hazardous Waste and Materials. A community that is protected from the potential for hazardous waste and materials contamination.

Page 190 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 97 of 305 ends

Policy PS -4.3: Transport. Restrict the transport of hazardous waste and materials to designated routes.

Policy PS-4.6: Regional Compliance. Continue to comply with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

Policy PS-4.7: City Plans. Ensure continued implementation of the proposed Hazardous Materials Release Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventories of the City of La Verne.

Action PS-4.3: Continue to promote off -site hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop-off.

Policy PS-8.4: Education. Prepare our community for comprehensive and efficient emergency response including safe and secure evacuation routes.

Policy PS-8.5: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services during and after emergencies.

Page 191 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 98 of 305 ends

Policy PS-8.6: Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a ran ge of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

Action PS-8.1: Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly.

Action PS-8.2: Regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

Policy CSF-5.5: Fire Response Times. Plan for, track, and maintain acceptable response times, as determined by the La Verne Fire Department.

Policy CSF -5.6: Technology. Support efforts to improve police, fire, and emergency medical services through improved use of modern technology and industry best practices.

Policy CSF-5.8: Roadway Design. Design and maintain roadways in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

Action CSF-5.1: The La Verne Fire Department and City Engineer will review proposed development projects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and

Page 192 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 99 of 305 ends

other emergency response functions.

Action CSF-5.5: Prepare a comprehensive update of the City’s disaster awareness and emergency preparedness program.

5. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-5, pages 5.8-39 through 5.8- 42)
Explanation: Brackett Field Airport, a County -owned and operated airport, is located within the southern portion of the City of La Verne. The Brackett Field ALUCP was adopted to ensure that future land uses in the area surrounding Brackett Field Airport will be compatible with potential long-range aircraft activities at the airport, and that the public’s exposure to airport safety hazards and noise impacts are minimized. The ALUCP provides the basis by which the ALUC and local agencies located within the Airport Influence Areas carry out land use development review responsibilities in accordance with State law. A portion of the City of La Verne is located within the Brackett Field Airport Influence Area and development within this area would therefore be subject to the ALUCP.

The ALUCP divides the Airport Influence Area into seven different zones and provides guidelines on issues such as land use and building height. It gives three general categories —normally compatible, conditional, or incompatible—to indicate its recommendati ons for the stated issue and its proximity to the airport. For example, the zone closest to the runway should not have buildings over three stories tall, trees higher than 35 feet, or serve as an attraction for birds or other wildlife. As shown in Figure 5.8-1, Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones, most of the City of La Verne falls into Zone E or Zone D which have the fewest restrictions and are categorized as having “normally compatible” or “conditional” land use acceptability across most categories. Zone s A, B1, B2, and C1 are more restrictive in nature due to their close proximity to the airport. The majority of mapped Zones A, B1, B2, and C1 are within the Bracket Field Airport facilities or outside of the Planning Area; however, a small portion of the southern Planning Area is located within these zones.

Page 193 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 100 of 305 ends

Noise associated with aircraft overflights is also of concern when evaluating aircraft noise effects in terms of land use compatibility. Single -event noise is the maximum sound level produced by an individual approach overflight at a specific location, oft en described in terms of Lmax, which is the maximum sound level recorded for each event. A different measurement of single-event noise, also commonly used when evaluating aircraft noise, is the SEL. The SEL describes the event’s mean energy level over the duration of the noise event. As would be expected, single -event noise levels for aircraft overflights within the Planning Area would be greatest and most frequent near the airport’s primary flight paths. The majority of mapped noise contours above the 65 C NEL contour associated with Brackett Field are located within the Bracket Field Airport facilities or outside of the Planning Area; however, a small portion of the 65 -70 CNEL contour is located adjacent to the airport, and the 60 -65 CNEL contour extends in to the southern portion of the Planning Area. While no specific development projects are proposed under the General Plan Update, new development and redevelopment may allow for new noise sensitive land uses within the 60 dB CNEL noise contours.

The ALUC retains land use development review of applicable projects until the affected local agencies’ General and Specific Plans have been deemed consistent with the ALUCP. All future development projects accommodated by the General Plan Update would be r equired to comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to aircraft, including the Brackett Field ALUCP. Additionally, the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with operation of Bracket Fiel d Airport. Policy PS -6.1 maintains compatibility of development with airport operations in the area surrounding the airport in accordance with the adopted ALUCP. Policy PS -6.2 requires that the City review all improvements at Brackett Field for consistency with the General Plan. Policy PS-6.3 maintains regular communication and coordination with Los Angeles County and Brackett Field, and request advance notice of any operations that could adversely impact the community, even if those impacts are temporary. Policy PS-6.4 ensures that buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces for Brackett Field are not approved, unless found consistent by the Los Angeles County ALUC. Additionally, in accordance with FAR Part 77, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface are required to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC. Per Policy PS -6.5, for development projects with structures higher than 200 feet above existing grade, the City shall inform the ALUC and submit materials to the ALUC for review. Proposed projects that would exceed a height of 200 feet above existing grade shall be required to file Form 7460-1 with the FAA. Policy PS 6.6 requires compliance with

Page 194 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 101 of 305 ends

all applicable FAA and Los Angeles County regulations regarding the operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly referred to as “drones”, including restrictions and requirements for operation near airports (e.g., Brackett Field). Policy PS-7.2 requires that sensitive facilities and uses be located in areas away from excessive noise unless proper mitigation is in place. Policy PS -7.11 supports working with Los Angeles County and Brackett Field to maintain noise from the airport at its current level. Action 7.2 requires new development and transportation projects be reviewed for compliance with the noise requirements established in the proposed General Plan Update, including the standards established in Table PS-1, and, where necessary, mitigate excessive noise through best practices.

Compliance with General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts with regard to safety hazards to people residing or working in the Planning Area to a less than significant level.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-6: Aircraft. A community that is protected from the impacts and potential risks of aircraft activity at Brackett Field.

Policy PS -6.1: Land Use Compatibility. Maintain compatibility of development with airport operations in the area surrounding the airport in accordance with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

Policy PS-6.2: Development Plans. Review plans for all improvements at Brackett Field for consistency with the City of La Verne General Plan, to the extent required by Government Code 65403, and provide the County of Los Angeles with suggestions to resolve areas of inconsistency.

Policy PS-6.3: Airport Operations Monitoring. Maintain regular communication and coordination with Los Angeles County and Brackett Field, and request advance notice of any operations that could adversely impact the community, even if those impacts are temporary.

Policy PS -6.4: Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. Do not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces for Brackett Field unless found consistent by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Additionally, in accordance with FAR Part 77, require applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface to file a Form 7460 -1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC.

Page 195 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 102 of 305 ends

Policy PS -6.5: Structures above 200 Feet. For development projects with structures higher than 200 feet above existing grade, the City shall inform the ALUC and submit materials to the ALUC for review. Proposed projects that would exceed a height of 200 feet above existing grade shall be required to file Form 7460-1 with the FAA.

Policy PS-6.6: Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Require compliance with all applicable FAA and Los Angeles County regulations regarding the operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly referred to as “drones”, including restrictions and requirements for operation near airports (e.g., Brackett Field).

Policy PS-7.2: Sensitive Facilities. Locate sensitive facilities such as residential uses, schools, medical facilities, libraries, churches, and convalescent homes away from areas of excessive noise unless proper mitigation measures are in place.

Policy PS -7.11: Airport Noise. Work with Los Angeles County and Brackett Field to monitor aircraft noise, implement noise -reducing operation measures, promote pilot awareness of noise impacts, and maintain noise from the airport at its current level.

Action PS-7.1: Update the La Verne Municipal Code to ensure that the noise standards are consistent with this General Plan, and to require new residential, mixed -use with a residential component, and other noise-sensitive development to be designed to minimize noise expo sure to noise sensitive uses through incorporation of site planning and architectural techniques. The update shall also include noise standards for residential uses within a mixed -use development, which may differ from other adopted resident ial noise standards.

Action PS -7.2: Review new development projects for compliance with the noise requirements established in this General Plan, including the standards established in Tables PS-1 and PS -2. Where necessary, require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best pra ctices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise -generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise -generating equipment, placement of noise -tolerant features between noise sources and se nsitive receptors, and use of noise -minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt.

6. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-6, pages 5.8-42 through 5.8- 46)
Explanation: The General Plan Update would allow a variety of new development, including residential and non -residential projects, which would result in increased jobs and population in the Planning Area. As the City is nearly built out, roads and infrastructure are ge nerally in place and major

Page 196 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 103 of 305 ends

circulation improvements are not anticipated to accommodate the new growth. Implementation of the General Plan Update would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As described in Section 5.1 3, Public Services & Recreation, the LVFD provides fire and emergency response service to the City. The LVFD has mutual aid agreements with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the United States Forest Service. The County OAERP provides for the coord ination of emergency operations plans of agencies and/or jurisdictions within the Operational Area. The OAERP conforms to the standards of the NIMS and SEMS. The OAERP does not provide a specific evacuation route map, as evacuation measures would be implemented based on the specific emergency and area affected. The General Plan Update would not require or result in revisions to the adopted OAERP.

As part of the General Plan Update, the City prepared an analysis consistent with SB 99 to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The analysis found that out of 5,471 unique land parcels identified as residential and located within an identified hazard zone, the vast majority (approximately 81 percent) of the parcels have multiple exit points with access to multiple primary emergency access roadways, and another 10 percent of the parcels have multiple exit points access to a primary emergency access roadway. Approximately seven percent of the developed parcels have one exit point directly onto a single primary emergency access roadway, and the remaining two percent have one exit point with access to a single primary emergency access roadway. Parcels with one exit point are located primarily in the northern portion of the City; however, there are also small portions of other subdivisions with only one exit point located throughout the Planning Area.

The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address emergency evacuation routes. Specifically, Policy PS -8.6 directs cooperation with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a range of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

The General Plan Update does not include any site -specific development.

However, future development would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road

Page 197 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 104 of 305 ends

closures. Highways and major roadways are anticipated to be used as the primary routes for evacuation; however, evacuation routes would depend upon the emergency event and area affected. The General Plan Update includes policies and actions to address emer gency response and evacuation. Policy PS 4.5 ensures that the Fire Department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City. Policy PS-

8.1 coordinates with service providers to ensure the resilience of critical facilities, lifeline services, and infrastructure, and plan for the use of critical facilities during post-disaster response and recovery. Policy PS-8.2 ensures La Verne’s NHMP is updated on a regular basis in order to reflect changing conditions, best practices, regulatory environment, and advancements in knowledge; and to maintain eligibility for public ass istance grants. Policy PS-8.6 directs cooperation with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a range of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation. Action 8.1 directs the City to regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly. Action 8.2 directs regular review of County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures. Action 8.3 continues to implement the City of La Verne’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Policy CSF -5.8 ensures roadways are designed and maintained in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times. Action CSF-5.1 ensures the LVFD and City Engineer will review proposed development projects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and other emergency response functions. Action CSF -5.5 directs the City to prepare a comprehensive update of the City’s disaster awareness and emergency preparedness program. Action CSF -5.6 directs the City to conduct annual disaster drills to train City staff and test the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and operational readiness of the Emergency Operations Center.

Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of future developments within the Planning Area. As part of the development review process (Municipal Code Chapter 18.16), future development projects would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans among many other environmental issues in order to ensure the safety of City residents and the physical environment. Therefore, impacts associated with adopted emer gency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Page 198 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 105 of 305 ends

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS-4.5: Emergency Response. Ensure that the Fire Department can continue to respond safely and effectively to a hazardous materials incident in the City, whether it is a spill at a permitted facility, or the result of an accident along a section of the freeway or railroads that extend across the City.

Policy PS-8.1: Critical Facilities. Coordinate with service providers to ensure the resilience of critical facilities, lifeline services, and infrastructure, and plan for the use of critical facilities during post-disaster response and recovery.

Policy PS-8.2: Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Update La Verne’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) on a regular basis in order to reflect changing conditions, best practices, regulatory environment, and advancements in knowledge; and to maintain eligibility for public assistance grants.

Policy PS-8.3: Communication. Maintain proper communication protocols and procedures among emergency service providers; local, state, and federal government agencies; businesses; schools; utilities; and other relevant parties to ensure quick and efficient response in the event of an emergency.

Policy PS-8.4: Education. Prepare our community for comprehensive and efficient emergency response including safe and secure evacuation routes.

Policy PS-8.5: Automatic and Mutual Aid. Continue to participate in automatic and mutual aid agreements with adjacent service providers to ensure efficient and adequate resources, facilities, and support services during and after emergencies.

Policy PS-8.6: Emergency Evacuation Routes and Access. Work with the Fire Department and Police Department to define minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas and to maintain, update, and regularly exercise emergency access, protocols, and evacuation routes to assess their effectiveness under a ran ge of emergency scenarios. If areas with inadequate evacuation routes are identified, develop appropriate mitigation measures, improvement plans, or education programs to ensure safe evacuation.

Policy PS-8.7: Emergency Shelters. Periodically review emergency shelters to ensure that necessary equipment supplies are available in case of emergency.

Policy PS-8.8: Collaboration. Strengthen emergency services preparedness and response by linking emergency services with natural hazard mitigation programs, and enhancing public education on a regional scale.

Page 199 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 106 of 305 ends

Policy PS-8.9: Institutions. Regularly coordinate with the City’s major institutions, schools, employers, and homeowners associations regarding emergency response procedures.

Policy PS-8.10: Volunteer Service. Continue to support volunteer service programs such as the City of La Verne Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Training and Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol (RSVP) as valuable assets to the community.

Action PS-8.1: Regularly practice implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and update it regularly.

Action PS-8.2: Regularly review County and State Emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.

Action PS-8.3: Continue to implement the City of La Verne’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy CSF -5.4: Department Consultation. Promote coordination between land use planning and urban design through consultation and coordination with the Police and Fire Departments during the review of new development applications.

Policy CSF-5.5: Fire Response Times. Plan for, track, and maintain acceptable response times, as determined by the La Verne Fire Department.

Policy CSF-5.8: Roadway Design. Design and maintain roadways in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.

Action CSF-5.5: Prepare a comprehensive update of the City’s disaster awareness and emergency preparedness program.

Page 200 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 107 of 305 ends

7. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HAZ-7, pages 5.8-46 through 5.8- 52)
Explanation: The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard to people and structures, particularly within areas adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels. As described in Section 5.17, Wildfire, and shown in Figure 5.17-1, in that section of this EIR, the Planning Area includes LRA and SRA, with portions of both areas being designated as VHFHSZs. This includes the mountainous northern portion of the City and areas that abut Angeles National Forest. In addition to the direct physical threat to life and property, smoke released during an event can have a detrimental effect on air quality and lead to health risks from smoke inhalation.

Protection from wildland fires is realized through creation of defensible areas around structures, the use of fire -resistant building materials, and coordinated emergency response. All new construction is required to adhere to standards and requirements se t forth in the La Verne Municipal Code, which incorporates the California Fire Code. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 15.32.110, Fuel Modification Plan in Fire Hazard Severity Zones, all development located within designated FHSZs would be required to prepare a fuel modification plan, which would be reviewed by the fire marshal for conformance with the Fire Code, County fuel modification guidelines, and CCR Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, subchapter 2 for development located within areas designated as a fire hazard severity zone within SRA or LRA. Additionally, special attention would be given to development in hillside areas in the City per Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, H-D-O-Z Hillside Development Overlay Zone, which provides supplemental standards for the development of hillside areas of the City and regulates development of hillside areas to minimize danger to life and property due to the hazards, including wildland fire. Further, the General Plan Update Public Safety Element includes goals and policies to reduce the risk of wildland hazards. Policy PS -1.1 provides adequate fire prevention services and facilities to meet the service standards identified by the Fire Department. Policy PS-1.2 maintains and regularly updates the City’s fire hazard overlay map for changes in fire hazard severity districts consistent with changes in hazard designations by CAL FIRE. Policy PS -1.3 requires that all development in VHFHSZ meet VHFHSZ standards as designated by City Ordinance. Policy PS -1.4 directs the Ci ty to update La Verne’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) on a regular basis in order to reflect changing conditions, best practices, regulatory environment, and advancements in knowledge. Policy PS -1.5 avoids or minimizes new residential development in VHFHSZs, as feasible. Policy PS -1.6 requires

Page 201 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 108 of 305 ends

adequate fire protection plans and emergency vehicle access for new development in VHFHSZs. Policy PS -1.7 requires fire protection buffers between natural areas and developed areas susceptible to wildland fires; fire protection buffers shall be maintained at private expense and on private property according to the applicable standards and regulations of the LVFD.

Policy PS-1.8 considers fire safe design (i.e., fire-resistant building and site design, materials, and landscaping) for development within very h igh fire hazard severity zones as part of the development review process. Policy PS-

1.9 coordinates with the Fire Department to identify and maintain fire hazard reduction projects, including community fire breaks and private road and public road clearance . Policy PS -1.10 requires, as part of the review process, ongoing brush management, fuel management/modification, defensible space, fire retardant landscaping, visible home and street addressing and signage, and other project design features for new development located in areas of or adjacent to high wildfire risk. Policy PS-

1.11 coordinates with the Fire Department to identify building and site design methods or other methods to minimize damage if new structures are proposed to be in VHFHSZs when rebuildin g after a fire. Policy PS -1.12 requires development to prove conclusively that it can be served with adequate water capacity to support fire protection services. Policy PS -1.13 prohibits new development if located outside of an accepted fire service response time, as determined by the City. Policy PS-1.14 requires sufficient ingress/egress access points in all new development to support firefighting activities, as determined by the Fire Department. Policy PS -1.16 ensures compliance with the Subdivision Map Act requirements for structural fire protection and suppression services, subdivision requirements for on/off - site improvements, ingress and egress, street standards, and other concerns.

Policy PS-1.17 requires that all buildings and structures within La V erne comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Fire and Building Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards. Policy PS -1.18 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities and infrastructure outside of VHFHSZs, including but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, emergency communication facilities, and utilities or identify construction methods or other methods to min imize damage if these facilities must be located in VHFHSZs. Action PS -1.1 directs the City to work with the LVFD to maintain and regularly update the City’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map for changes in fire hazard severity zones consistent with changes i n hazard designations by CAL FIRE. Action PS -1.2 works with the Fire Department to maintain an ongoing fire inspection program to reduce fire hazards associated with multifamily development, critical facilities, public assembly facilities, industrial buildings, and nonresidential buildings. Action PS-1.3 mitigates, as feasible, existing non-conforming development to contemporary fire safe standards where feasible, including road standards and vegetative hazards.

Action PS -1.4 assesses site constraints when considering land use

Page 202 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 109 of 305 ends

designations near wildlands to avoid or minimize wildfire hazards as part of a land use update or amendment. Action PS-1.5 directs the City to locate, design and construct development to provide adequate defensibility and minimize the risk of structural lo ss from wildland fires. Action PS -1.6 directs development on hillsides and canyons to be designed to reduce the increased risk of fires from topography features (i.e., steep slopes, ridge saddles). Action PS-1.7 conducts an evaluation on fire flow pressures in the City and collaboration with the appropriate water providers on necessary upgrades to ensure adequate fire protection. Action PS-1.8 works with CAL FIRE, United States Forest Service, United States Geologic Service, and applicable nongovernmental a gencies to create a plan to address post -fire recovery activities and projects that allow burned areas to fully recover and minimize repetitive losses and further damage. Action PS-1.10 ensures the LVFD and City Engineer will review proposed development pr ojects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and other emergency response functions. Action PS -1.11 requires that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building and Fire Code wit h local amendments adopted by the City, including the use of fire sprinklers in residential structures.

Future development allowed under the General Plan Update would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to wildland fire hazards, including State fire safety regulations associated with wildland -urban interfaces, fire -safe building standards, and defensible space requirements. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with wildland fire hazards as required under CEQA. Therefore, through compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to wildland fire hazards and impleme ntation of the General Plan Update goals, policies, and actions, impact regarding the exposure of people or structures to significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS-1: Fire Safety. A community that is minimally impacted by wildland and urban fires through implementation of proactive fire hazard abatement strategies.

Policy PS-1.1: Services and Facilities. Provide adequate fire prevention services and facilities to meet the service standards identified by the Fire Department.

Policy PS-1.2: Fire Hazard Identification. Maintain and regularly update the City’s fire hazard overlay map for changes in fire hazard severity districts consistent with changes in

Page 203 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 110 of 305 ends

hazard designations by CAL FIRE.

Policy PS-1.3: City Standards. Require that all development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) meet VHFHSZ standards as designated by City Ordinance.

Policy PS-1.4: Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Update La Verne’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) on a regular basis in order to reflect changing conditions, best practices, regulatory environment, and advancements in knowledge.

Policy PS -1.5: Development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Avoid or minimize new residential development in VHFHSZs as feasible.

Policy PS-1.6: Fire Protection Plans. Require adequate fire protection plans and emergency vehicle access for new development in VHFHSZs.

Policy PS-1.7: Fire Protection Buffers. Require fire protection buffers between natural areas and developed areas susceptible to wildland fires; fire protection buffers shall be maintained at private expense and on private property according to the applicable standards and regulations of the Fire Department.

Policy PS-1.8: Fire Safe Design. Consider fire safe design (i.e. fire-resistant building and site design, materials, and landscaping) for development within very high fire hazard severity zones as part of the development review process.

Policy PS-1.9: Fire Hazard Reduction Projects. Coordinate with the Fire Department to identify and maintain fire hazard reduction projects, including community fire breaks and private road and public road clearance.

Policy PS-1.10: Standards for New Development. As part of the review process, require ongoing brush management, fuel management/modification, defensible space, fire retardant landscaping, visible home and street addressing and signage, and other project design features for new development located in areas of or adjacent to high wildfire risk.

Policy PS-1.11: Rebuilding After a Fire. Coordinate with the Fire Department to identify building and site design methods or other methods to minimize damage if new structures are proposed to be in VHFHSZs when rebuilding after a fire.

Policy PS-1.12: Adequate Water Supply. Require development to prove conclusively that it can be served with adequate water capacity to support fire protection services.

Policy PS -1.13: Response Time. Prohibit new development if located outside of an accepted fire service response time, as determined by the City of La Verne.

Policy PS -1.14: Access. Require sufficient ingress/egress access points in all new development to support firefighting activities, as determined by the Fire Department.

Policy PS-1.15: Education. Educate the community (residents, builders, property owners, and employers) on fire hazards, fire safety measures, and local, regional, state, and federal

Page 204 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 111 of 305 ends

assistance programs; with a special focus on at-risk populations, such as those with limited mobility.

Policy PS-1.16: Permit Approvals. Ensure compliance with the Subdivision Map Act requirements for structural fire protection and suppression services, subdivision requirements for on/off-site improvements, ingress and egress, street standards, and other concerns.

Policy PS-1.17: Fire and Building Codes. Require that all buildings and structures within La Verne comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Fire and Building Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards.

Policy PS-1.18: Critical Facilities and Structures. Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities and infrastructure outside of VHFHSZs, including but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, emergency communication facilities, and utilities or identify construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities must be located in VHFHSZs.

Policy PS -1.19: Sustainable Ecological Management. Encourage implementation of wildfire mitigation activities in a manner consistent with the goals of promoting sustainable ecological management and community stability.

Action PS-1.1: Work with the Fire Department to maintain and regularly update the City’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map for changes in fire hazard severity zones consistent with changes in hazard designations by CAL FIRE.

Action PS-1.2: Work with the Fire Department to maintain an ongoing fire inspection program to reduce fire hazards associated with multifamily development, critical facilities, public assembly facilities, industrial buildings, and nonresidential buildings.

Action PS -1.3: Mitigate, as feasible, existing non -conforming development to contemporary fire safe standards where feasible, including road standards and vegetative hazards.

Action PS -1.4: Assess site constraints when considering land use designations near wildlands to avoid or minimize wildfire hazards as part of a land use update or amendment.

Action PS -1.5: Locate, design and construct development to provide adequate defensibility and minimize the risk of structural loss from wildland fires.

Action PS-1.6: Design development on hillsides and canyons to reduce the increased risk of fires from topography features (i.e., steep slopes, ridge saddles).

Action PS-1.7: Conduct an evaluation on fire flow pressures in the City. Collaborate with the appropriate water providers on necessary upgrades to ensure adequate fire protection.

Action PS -1.8: Work with CAL FIRE, United States Forest Service, United States Geologic Service, and applicable nongovernmental agencies to create a plan to address

Page 205 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 112 of 305 ends

post-fire recovery activities and projects that allow burned areas to fully recover and minimize repetitive losses and further damage.

Action PS-1.9: In the event of a significant wildfire, the City and its Fire Department shall immediately coordinate with relevant federal, state, and local agencies, including but not limited to the USDA, USFS, CalFire, the Los Angeles Flood Control District, and the Los Angeles Fire Department to establish and implement, as feasible, a flooding and debris flow prediction and monitoring program. The intent of the program shall be to map and assess the likelihood of debris flow (in %), potential volume of debris flow (in m3), and combined relative debris flow hazard. In the event that a flood or debris flow risk is predicted during a subsequent storm event, the City shall implement procedures contained in the Emergency Operations Plan to notify residents an d business owners of evacuation orders in affected areas. This action is written and adopted with the understanding that the City of La Verne does not possess the resources to implement such a monitoring program independently, and must rely on the expertise and resources of outside agencies.

Action PS -1.10: The Fire Department and City Engineer will review proposed development projects and street networks to evaluate the accessibility for fire engines and other emergency response functions.

Action PS -1.11: Continue to require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building and Fire Code with local amendments adopted by the City, including the use of fire sprinklers in residential structures.

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HWQ-1, pages 5.9-21 through

5.9-24)
Explanation: Construction
Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with future construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind ero sion impacts that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

The La Verne Municipal Code Section 13.50.090, Urban Stormwater Runoff Mitigation for Construction Activity, describes erosion protection measures required during all construction activities and/or as part of the

Page 206 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 113 of 305 ends

applicant’s legal requirements to obtain coverage under the applicable NPDES Construction General Permit and State Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification. In compliance with NPDES Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construct ion activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related pollutants. Additionally, La Verne Municipal Code Section 13.50.150, BMPs for Construction Activities, requires tha t all BMPs required as a condition of any approval for construction activity shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of the project, unless otherwise authorized by the authorized enforcement officer, the community development director or building official.

The General Plan Update sets policies and actions for build-out of the City, but it does not envision or authorize any specific development project.

Because of this, the site -specific details of potential future development projects are currently unknown, and analysis of potential impacts of such projects is not feasible and would be speculative. However, each future project must include detailed project specific drainage plans that control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. The RWQCB would require a project -specific SWPPP to be prepared for each future project that disturbs an area of one acre or larger. The SWPPPs would include project -specific best management measures that are designed to control drainage and erosion.

Operation
Qualifying new development and redevelopment projects would be required to be consistent with the Los Angeles County MS4 NPDES Permit and La Verne Municipal Code Chapter 13.60, Low Impact Development, which requires post-construction LID BMPs to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume. All qualifying new development and redevelopment projects would be required to submit a stormwater plan for review and approval by the City Engineer, who may condition approval on actions related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff from the project site. Other existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, SWPPPs , and to implement BMPs. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide the on -site storm drain infrastructure, including water quality measures, to ensure the stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development wo uld be captured and treated on-site, protecting water quality both on- and off-site.

Page 207 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 114 of 305 ends

Waters that are listed under Section 303(d) of the CWA are known as “impaired.” There is one potentially impaired water body within the Planning Area: San Jose Creek Reach 2 (Temple to I-10 at White Avenue), which was listed in the CWA Section 303(d) for c oliform bacteria and excess algal growth. The RWQCB has recommended the listings for both coliform bacteria and excess algal Growth at this water body be delisted, due to the limited availability of evidence. This delisting is pending approval by the SWRCB. Additionally, this water body is managed by the East San Gabriel Valley Watershed Management Group, and it is currently too early in the data collection process to list this water body as impaired.

Other nearby impaired water bodies that are located outs ide of La Verne include Puddingstone Reservoir, Walnut Creek Wash (Drains from Puddingstone Reservoir), San Antonio Creek, and San Gabriel River (East Fork).

The City manages local storm drain facilities and the LACFCD is responsible for regional flood control planning within the County. Provision of stormwater detention facilities, as needed, would reduce runoff rates and peak flows. General Plan Update Public Safety and Resource Management goals, policies, and actions aim to enhance stormwater quality and infiltration as well as ensure development projects are reviewed to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to confirm off -site runoff is not increased beyond pre - development levels. Policy PS -2.7 requires new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate LID BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Policy CSF-2.10 requires projects to incorporate BMPs and LID measures to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. Action CSF-2.4 ensures development projects are reviewed to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and requires development to include measures to ensure that off-site runoff is not increased beyond pre- development levels during rain and flood events. Action CSF -2.5 ensures that project designs minimize drainage concentrations, mini mize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize LID strategies, and utilize BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Action CSF -2.6 promotes the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, including but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving. Action CSF -2.7 requires new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume, and to take into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City.

Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, SUSMPs, SWPPPs, and to implement BMPs.

These regulatory requirements are intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. Through implementation of the General Plan Update policies and actions,

Page 208 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 115 of 305 ends

implementation of the Municipal Code requirements identified above, compliance with mandatory federal and State regulations, and compliance with the existing regulations, future development projects associated with implementation of the General Plan Update would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS-2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy CSF-2.10: Stormwater Treatments. Projects shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.

Action CSF-2.4: Continue to review development projects to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and require development to include measures to ensure that off -site runoff is not increased beyond pre-development levels during rain and flood events.

Action CSF -2.5: Project designs shall minimize drainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize low impact development (LID) strategies, and utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Action CSF -2.6: Promote the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, including but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving.

Action CSF-2.7: Require new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume. Mitigation measures, such as LID strategies, should take into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City.

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HWQ-2, pages 5.9-24 through

5.9-28)

Page 209 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 116 of 305 ends

Explanation: The Planning Area is underlain by the San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin is considered a very low- priority basin and is not critically overdrafted. The Basin is divided into three adjudicated sub-basins: Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin), Puente Basin, and portions of the Six Basins area. In addition, there is the Spadra sub-basin, which is not adjudicated. The Planning Area is located within the Main Basin and Six Basins management areas, which are each adjudic ated and managed separately by the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and Six Basins Watermaster, respectively.

The Main Basin is replenished by stream runoff from the adjacent mountains and hills, by rainfall directly on the surface of the valley floor, subsurface inflow from Raymond Basin and Puente Basin, and by return flow from water applied for overlying uses. Additionally, the Main Basin is replenished with imported water. The Watermaster maintains records of each producer’s water rights and annual production. Although there is no limit on the quantity of water that may be produced, production in excess of a water right is subject to a replacement water assessment. The Watermaster uses funds collected from producers’ overproduction to purchase imported water from municipal water districts.

The main source of groundwater replenishment to the Six Basins is surface- water runoff from precipitation that falls on the San Gabriel Mountains and recharges at spreading grounds located along the foot of the mountain range, predominantly at the San Anto nio Spreading Grounds. The water -supply agencies also use imported surface water from MWD for artificial recharge at the spreading grounds (and for direct consumptive uses).

As discussed in detail in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, water service in the Planning Area is provided by the City of La Verne and Golden State Water Company – San Dimas System (GSWC). The City of La Verne is the water purveyor for the vast majority of the area within the City; the remaining parts of the City along its western border and unincorporated areas in the SOI are served by GSWC. The City of La Verne’s water sources include imported water from the Three Valleys Municipal Water Distri ct’s (TVMWD) Miramar Treatment Plant and groundwater extracted from Six Basins. GSWC’s main source of water supply is groundwater pumped from the Main Basin. Other sources of GSWC’s supply include treated imported surface water purchased from MWD through T VMWD; treated groundwater and surface water purchased from Covina Irrigating Company; treated water purchased from Walnut Valley Water District; and local treated surface water from San Dimas Canyon Creek. As discussed in Section 5.16 of this EIR, both wat er service providers have concluded in their respective Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) that they will be able to meet projected future water demand.

Subsequent development projects accommodated by implementation of the

Page 210 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 117 of 305 ends

General Plan Update, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and roadway projects, would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. However, the majority of development anticipated by the Genera l Plan Update is within areas currently developed with urban uses. The General Plan Land Use Map proposed under the General Plan Update does not re-designate any areas of land currently designated for open spaces uses to urban uses. The amount of new pavem ent and impervious surfaces, and the extent to which they affect infiltration, depends on the site -specific features and soil types of a given project site. Projects located in urban areas would have less of an impact than projects converting open lands an d spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, recharge to the Basin is primarily from direct percolation of precipitation and percolation of stream flow consisting of runoff from the surrounding mountains, as well as replenishment with imported water. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map would direct future development to infill locations and would not re -designate open space uses to urban uses; therefore, implementation under the General Plan Update would not significantly impact natural rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge beyond existing conditions.

Given that implementation and future buildout under the General Plan Update would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in the Planning Area, when compared to the overall size of the regional groundwater basin recharge area, and that there are adequate water supplies (including groundwater) to serve the projected buildout demand of the General Plan, this potential impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

The General Plan Update includes policies and actions that support water conservation, minimization of impervious surfaces, and coordination with local water districts when planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth. Policy RM -4.1 promotes residential and commercial water conservation, in partnership with local water agencies. Policy RM -4.2 minimizes dependence on imported water through efficient use of local surface sources, using wise groundwater management practices, conservation measure s, and the use of reclaimed wastewater and non - potable water for irrigation of landscaping and agriculture, where feasible.

Policy RM -4.4 encourages all public and private landscaping in new development and renovation projects to be designed to reduce wat er demand, prevent runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater through the installation of irrigation systems, the selection of appropriate plant materials, and proper soil preparation. Policy RM-4.5 directs the City to work cooperatively with loca l water agencies to effectively and efficiently manage stormwater runoff as part of a multipronged water conservation strategy. Policy PS-2.9 directs the City to work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opportunities for successful aquifer

Page 211 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 118 of 305 ends

recharge. Policy CSF -2.5 encourages the use of recycled water in development projects and landscaping; and implements best practices (e.g., dual plumbing) to expand recycled water use when safe, financially feasible, and available. Policy CSF -2.7 supports water conservation measures that comply with state and federal legislation and that are consistent with measures adopted in the UWMP. Policy CSF-2.10 requires projects to incorporate BMPs and LID measures to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. Implementation of the General Plan policies, combined with continued management of the groundwater basins, would further ensure that future development anticipated by the General P lan Update would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM -4: Water Conservation. A community that protects and conserves limited water resources.

Policy RM -4.1: Conservation Strategies. In partnership with local water agencies, promote residential and commercial water conservation using multiple innovative strategies and contemporary best practices.

Policy RM -4.2: Efficient Use of Sources. Minimize dependence on imported water through efficient use of local surface sources, using wise groundwater management practices, conservation measures, and the use of reclaimed wastewater and non -potable water for irrigation of landscaping and agriculture, where feasible.

Policy RM -4.3: Distribution. Utilize the most recent available water conservation technology and green infrastructure to ensure an efficient and cost -effective distribution system.

Policy RM -4.4: Landscaping. Encourage all public and private landscaping in new development and renovation projects to be designed to reduce water demand, prevent runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater through the installation of irrigation systems, the selection of appropriate plant materials, and proper soil preparation.

Policy RM-4.5: Stormwater. Work cooperatively with local water agencies to effectively and efficiently manage stormwater runoff as part of the City’s multipronged water conservation strategy.

Page 212 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 119 of 305 ends

Action RM4.1: Develop educational outreach designed to increase public participation in water conservation and water quality awareness through printed material and the City’s website and social media accounts.

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Policy PS-2.9: Aquifer Recharge. Work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opportunities for successful aquifer recharge.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Goal CSF-2: Water System. A community with adequate access to a clean and plentiful potable water supply that is also well -served by efficient distribution and stormwater systems.

Policy CSF-2.1: Water Master Plan. Maintain a Citywide Water Master Plan to identify existing and future water needs, implement needed improvements, and identify potential funding sources.

Policy CSF -2.5: Use of Recycled Water. Encourage the use of recycled water in development projects and landscaping; implement best practices (e.g., dual plumbing) to expand recycled water use when safe, financially feasible, and available.

Policy CSF-2.7: Water Conservation. Support water conservation measures that comply with state and federal legislation and that are consistent with measures adopted in the Urban Water Management Plan.

Policy CSF-2.10: Stormwater Treatments. Projects shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Low Impact Development measures (LID) to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. The facilities shall be sized to meet regulatory requirements.

3. Erosion, Siltation, Flooding, and Runoff
Threshold: Would the project 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:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in

Page 213 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 120 of 305 ends

flooding on - or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HWQ-3, pages 5.9-28 through

5.9-34)
Explanation: Erosion and Siltation
Implementation under the General Plan Update would result in new development and redevelopment projects, and is anticipated to increase the area of impervious surfaces and/or result in alteration of existing drainage patterns. Substantial erosion or siltat ion is known to result during construction and/or during the post -construction phase if erosion control measures are not used. Erosion or siltation can also occur in the post - construction phase if runoff is not captured and conveyed appropriately.

As stated above, future development under the General Plan Update would be subject to NPDES permit requirements that address the control of erosion and siltation. This includes the Construction General Permit, which requires a SWPPP and the effective implementation of erosion control measures for projects greater than one acre in size (or part of a larger plan of development). The Los Angeles RWQCB conducts inspections and enforces the Construction General Permit at construction sites.

Additionally, future development on hillside areas would be subject to La Verne Municipal Code Chapter 18.68, H -D-O-Z Hillside Development Overlay Zone, which provides supplemental standards for the development of hillside areas of the City, including grading guidelines, lands caping standards, and drainage standards to reduce erosion.

Development under the General Plan Update would also be subject to the post-construction requirements of the MS4 NPDES permit. The La Verne Municipal Code Chapter 13.60, Low Impact Development, contains the City’s LID Ordinance. The City’s LID Ordinance es tablishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to minimize the adverse impacts from stormwater runoff, minimize impervious surfaces, reduce changes to pre -development hydrology, and prioritize the selection of BMPs to remove stormwater pollutants, reduce stormwater runoff volume, and beneficially use stormwater to support an integrated approach to protecting water quality and managing water resources. Qualifying new development and redevelopment projects in the City must be approved for the design and implementation of post -construction controls to mitigate stormwater pollution. Discharges that are not authorized by a NPDES permit must be permitted by other means by the Los Angeles RWQCB or SWRCB (e.g., filing a Report of Waste Discharge, Water Quality Certification).

Page 214 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 121 of 305 ends

Further, the General Plan Update includes goals, policies, and actions to provide residents, project applicants, and the City the tools to comply with existing regulations that address erosion and siltation from the addition of impervious surfaces and alteration of existing drainage patterns. Policy PS-

2.7 requires new developments that adds substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate LID BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Policy PS-3.4 requires adherence to the latest California Building Codes a nd regulations applicable to earth work and grading during construction, hillside grading guidelines to minimize erosion; and directs the City to update local codes periodically for the latest advances. Policy PS -3.5 limits acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time. Policy CSF -2.10 requires projects to incorporate BMPs and LID measures to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. Action CSF -2.4 ensures development projects are reviewed to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and requires development to include measures to ensure that off -site runoff is not increased beyond pre -development levels during rain and flood events.

Action CSF-2.5 ensures project designs minimize drainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize LID strategies, and utilize BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Action CSF-

2.7 requires new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume, and to into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City. Through implementation of the General Plan Update policies and existing regulations, erosional/siltation impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increasing impervious surfaces would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Surface Runoff
Future development under the General Plan Update has the potential to result in changes to the existing drainage patterns and could exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems and/or cause flooding on or off of a project site. Flooding can occur from an increase in impervious surfaces, which increases the volume and speed of runoff. When the volume and speed of runoff is increased, drainage facilities can be unable to handle the flows and capacity could be exceeded.

As previously described, RCFCWCD and the City operate and maintain a network of flood control facilities within the Planning Area. As specified in the City’s Municipal Code, qualifying development projects would be required to incorporate LID BMPs into the drainage system, slowing on - and off -site flow rates and decreasing flooding. LID BMPs could also include methods of on-site retention of runoff, such as cisterns, rain barrels, and basins which allow for a metered release of flows, typically after the rain event has passed, when capacity becomes available in the downstream pipes and channels.

Page 215 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 122 of 305 ends

The General Plan Update contains goals, policies, and actions to provide adequate stormwater infrastructure for flood control and reduce run -off quantity. Policy PS -2.7 requires new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integr ate LID BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Policy PS-2.11 directs the City to continue to coordinate with the LACFCD to encourage the improvement of channel segments to alleviate local flooding, in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Master Plan. Policy C SF-2.10 requires projects to incorporate BMPs and LID measures to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. Action CSF-

2.4 ensures development projects are reviewed to identi fy potential stormwater and drainage impacts and requires development to include measures to ensure that off -site runoff is not increased beyond pre - development levels during rain and flood events. Action CSF -2.5 ensures project designs minimize drainage c oncentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize LID strategies, and utilize BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Action CSF-2.6 promotes the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, including but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving. Action CSF -2.7 requires new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume, and to into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in th e City. Through implementation of the General Plan Update Plan goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, State, and local regulations discussed above, runoff would not exceed the capacity of drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or cause flooding impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Flood Flows
As described above and shown in Figure 5.9-4, only a small area within La Verne is located within a mapped portion of either the 100 -year and 500- year FEMA flood zones. The area documented to be subject to 100-year and 500-year flooding within La Verne is located along the San Dimas Wash (a dam spillway).

The General Plan Update sets policies and actions for buildout of the City, but does not envision or authorize any specific development project. Policy PS-2.1 maintains and continuously updates the City’s floodplain safety hazards map in concert with FEMA map amendments and improvements to local drainage facilities. Policy PS-2.2 avoids and minimizes flood risks for new development. Policy PS-2.3 reduces flood hazards in developed areas susceptible to flooding and requires new development in these areas to incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards. Policy

Page 216 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 123 of 305 ends

PS-2.11 directs the City to continue to coordinate with the LACFCD to encourage the improvement of channel segments to alleviate local flooding, in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Master Plan. As described above, Municipal Code Chapter 15.40, Floodplain Management, provides standard provisions for flood hazard reduction for flood -prone areas within La Verne. It includes floodplain management regulations to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the public, and to minimize the potential for private losses due to flood conditions. Future development projects accommodated by implementation of the General Plan Update would be reviewed by the City to determine if they are located within special flood hazard areas and thus subject to additional provisions set forth in Chapter 15.40. Additionally, construction of storm drainage improvements would occur as part of an overall development or infrastructure project, and would be considered in the environmental review associated with the specific project being proposed. With implementation of General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, the General Plan Update would not impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS -2: Flooding. A community that is protected from the dangers of flood and inundation hazards.

Policy PS-2.1: Flood Hazard Identification. Maintain and continuously update the City’s floodplain safety hazards map in concert with FEMA map amendments and improvements to local drainage facilities.

Policy PS-2.2: New Development. Avoid and minimize flood risks for new development.

Policy PS-2.3: Areas Susceptible to Flooding. Reduce flood hazards in developed areas susceptible to flooding (such as the 100 -year floodplain and areas known to the City to flood during intense or prolonged rainfall events) and require new development in these areas to incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards.

Policy PS-2.4: Education. Educate the community regarding flood prevention information and notify residents and motorists of impending flood hazards and evacuation procedures using the most efficient and modern technology appropriate.

Policy PS-2.5: Joint Use of Flood Control Facilities. Develop flood control facilities as parks, nature trails, equestrian parks, golf courses, or other types of recreational facilities or joint-use facilities that can withstand periodic inundation, to the extent feasible.

Policy PS-2.6: Interagency Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and public agencies responsible for flood protection to consider the impact to flooding and

Page 217 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 124 of 305 ends

flood control measures on properties within La Verne resulting from development in other jurisdictions.

Policy PS-2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Policy PS -2.8: Critical Facilities. Prohibit development of new essential and critical facilities and lifeline services in the 100-year floodplain.

Policy PS -2.9: Aquifer Recharge. Work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opportunities for successful aquifer recharge.

Policy PS-2.10: Open Space Area. Preserve open space areas for flood mitigation when possible.

Policy PS -2.11: Flood Control Facilities. Continue to coordinate with Los Angeles County Flood Control District to encourage the improvement of channel segments to alleviate local flooding, in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Master Plan.

Action PS-2.1: Monitor changes in Federal and State laws and regulations related to local flood protection, including the National Flood Insurance Program and incorporate necessary changes into the Municipal Code, the City's Emergency Operations Plan, and building codes as required and ensure that the City’s regulations continue to require that new development within flood hazard zones is consistent with this Safety Element and is required to meet the flood protection requirements of State law.

Action PS-2.2: Continue to disseminate information on flooding, flood control on private property, floodplains, and flood preparedness to the public.

Action PS-2.3: Communicate with FEMA annually regarding updates to Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Letter of Map Revisions.

Action PS-2.4: Periodically review county, state, and federal flood control best practices and incorporate appropriate standards into the Municipal Code.

Policy PS-3.4: Building Codes. Adhere to the latest California Building Codes and regulations regulating earth work and grading during construction, and hillside grading guidelines to minimize erosion; update local codes periodically for the latest advances.

Policy PS-3.5: Bare Soils. Limit acreage of bare soils exposed at any one time.

Page 218 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 125 of 305 ends

4. Flood Hazard, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones
Threshold: Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HWQ-4, pages 5.9-34 through

5.9-37)
Explanation: As described above and shown in Figure 5.9-4, only a small area within La Verne is located within a mapped portion of either the 100 -year and 500- year FEMA flood zones. The area documented to be subject to 100-year and 500-year flooding within La Verne is located along the San Dimas Wash (a dam spillway). It should be noted that a large section of the San Dimas Wash that runs through La Verne does not have data on flood hazard risk (it is located within FEMA Zone D – Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard).

FEMA also classifies large portions of the northern and western portions of La Verne as being located within FEMA Zone D (Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard). There is also a small portion of the southeastern part of the City that is located within FEMA Zone D. Nevertheless, areas within FEMA Zone D within La Verne are largely undeveloped, and therefore, damage is expected to be relatively limited within these areas during a large- scale flooding event. Should future development accommodated by implementation of the General Plan Update become inundated during a future flood event, there could be a risk of pollutants being released inadvertently into the environment. As described above, pursuant to the CWA, each subsequent development project or improv ement project that disturbs more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permit, which would require an approved SWPPP that includes BMPs for grading and preservation of topsoil.

SWPPPs are designed to contro l storm water quality degradation to the

Page 219 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 126 of 305 ends

extent practicable using BMPs during and after construction. In addition, the regulations of La Verne Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 restrict land uses that are dangerous to public health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards and require land uses vulnerable to flood, mudslide, or flood-related erosion be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.

Further, the General Plan Update Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce the risk of flooding and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Policy PS -2.1 maintains and continuously updates the City’s floodplain safety ha zards map in concert with FEMA map amendments and improvements to local drainage facilities. Policy PS-

2.2 avoids and minimizes flood risks for new development. Policy PS -2.3 reduces flood hazards in developed areas susceptible to flooding and requires new development in these areas to incorporate mitigation measures designed to mitigate flood hazards. Policy PS -2.6 coordinates with neighboring jurisdictions and public agencies responsible for flood protection to consider the impact to flooding and flood control measures on properties within La Verne resulting from development in other jurisdictions. Policy PS-2.7 requires new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate LID BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. Policy PS -2.10 pr eserves open space areas for flood mitigation when possible. Policy PS -2.11 directs the City to continue to coordinate with the LACFCD to encourage the improvement of channel segments to alleviate local flooding, in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Master Plan.

A tsunami is a catastrophic ocean wave, usually caused by a submarine earthquake, an underwater or coastal landslide, or a volcanic eruption. The Planning Area is located approximately 31 miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the Planning Area is too far away from the nearest ocean to have any meaningful tsunami risk.

Seiches can occur in bodies of water both near and far from an earthquake epicenter. Seiches as a result of ground shaking could occur in the region that may adversely impact property owners down -gradient from bodies of water in or near the Planning Area. There are five dams that have the potential to inundate portions of the City of La Verne in the event of seiche or dam failure including the Live Oak Reservoir, Puddingstone Diversion Dam, San Antonio Dam, San Dimas Dam, and Weymouth (as part of a Water Treatment Plant). As shown in Figure 5.9-5, much of the central and southern portions of La Verne have the potential to be inundated during failure of one or more dams. As described above, most of these dams do not have a history of dam failure; however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave the San Antonio Dam a DSAC II rating in December 2008. A DSAC II rating is given to dams where failure could begin during normal

Page 220 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 127 of 305 ends

operations or be initiated as the consequence of an event. The likelihood of failure from one of these occurrences, prior to remediation, is too high to assure public safety; or the combination of life or economic consequences with probability of failure i s very high. As a result of San Antonio Dam’s DSAC II rating, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a plan to implement Interim Risk Reduction Measures, or IRRMs. As such, monitoring and mitigation of dam failure is constantly occurring at both the federal and State levels. Additionally, the General Plan Update Safety Element includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce the risks associated with flood and inundation hazards, as described above.

Therefore, with implementation of General Plan Update goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, impacts associated with the risk of pollutants from seiches and flooding that may result from adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS -2: Flooding. A community that is protected from the dangers of flood and inundation hazards.

Policy PS-2.2: New Development. Avoid and minimize flood risks for new development.

Policy PS-2.6: Interagency Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and public agencies responsible for flood protection to consider the impact to flooding and flood control measures on properties within La Verne resulting from development in other jurisdictions.

Page 221 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 128 of 305 ends

Policy PS -2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Policy PS -2.8: Critical Facilities. Prohibit development of new essential and critical facilities and lifeline services in the 100-year floodplain.

Policy PS -2.9: Aquifer Recharge. Work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opportunities for successful aquifer recharge.

Policy PS-2.10: Open Space Area. Preserve open space areas for flood mitigation when possible.

Action PS-2.2: Continue to disseminate information on flooding, flood control on private property, floodplains, and flood preparedness to the public.

Action PS-2.3: Communicate with FEMA annually regarding updates to Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Letter of Map Revisions.

Action PS-2.4: Periodically review county, state, and federal flood control best practices and incorporate appropriate standards into the Municipal Code.

5. Water Quality Control Plan and Groundwater Management Plan Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, Impact HWQ -5, pages 5. 9-37 through

5.9-41)
Explanation: As described above, the local water quality control plan (Basin Plan) is maintained by the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Basin Plan specifies the State’s water quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and antidegradation policy) and ser ves as the basis for the RWQCB’s regulatory programs. When permittees and projects comply with the provisions of applicable NPDES permits and water quality permitting, they are consistent with the Basin Plan. The General Plan Update includes

Page 222 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 129 of 305 ends

policies to implement NPDES requirements and enforcement of said regulations, such as Policy PS -2.7, which requires new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate LID BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff; and Policy CSF-2.10, which requires projects to incorporate BMPs and LID measures to minimize the quantity of stormwater directed to impermeable surface and to treat stormwater before discharge from the site. Further, Action CSF -2.4 ensures development projects are reviewed to identify potential stormwater and drainage impacts and requires development to include measures to ensure that off-site runoff is not increased beyond pre -development levels during rain and flood events; Action CSF -2.5 ensures project designs minimize dr ainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize LID strategies, and utilize BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff; Action CSF -2.6 promotes the use of LID strategies in new development and redevelopment projects, i ncluding but not limited to the use of canopy trees and shrubs, vegetated swales, and permeable paving; and Action CSF -2.7 requires new development to mitigate increases in stormwater peak flows and/or volume, and to into consideration impacts on adjoining lands in the City. Through implementation of existing regulations and the General Plan Update policies and actions, implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict or obstruct a water quality control plan. Therefore, impacts in this regard will be less than significant.

As described above, the San Gabriel Valley Basin is categorized as a very low-priority basin and is not in a condition of critical overdraft; as such, a groundwater management plan is not required. The San Gabriel Valley Basin is divided into three adjudi cated sub -basins: Main Basin, Puente Basin, and portions of the Six Basins area. In addition, there is the Spadra sub-basin, which is not adjudicated. The Planning Area is located within the Main Basin and Six Basins management areas, which are each adjudi cated and managed separately by the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and Six Basins Watermaster, respectively.

The General Plan Update includes policies to support the monitoring, protection, and development of groundwater resources which is consistent with the tasks of the Watermaster. Policy RM-4.1 promotes residential and commercial water conservation, in partnership with local water agencies.

Policy RM-4.2 minimizes dependence on imported water through efficient use of local surface sources, using wise groundwater management practices, conservation measures, and the use of reclaimed wastewater and non - potable water for irrigation of landscaping and agriculture, where feasible.

Page 223 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 130 of 305 ends

to work cooperatively with local water agencies to effectively and efficiently manage stormwater runoff as part of a multipronged water conservation strategy. Policy PS-2.9 directs the City to work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opport unities for successful aquifer recharge. Policy CSF -2.5 encourages the use of recycled water in development projects and landscaping; and implements best practices (e.g., dual plumbing) to expand recycled water use when safe, financially feasible, and avai lable. Policy CSF -2.7 supports water conservation measures that comply with state and federal legislation and that are consistent with measures adopted in the UWMP. Thus, adoption and implementation of the General Plan Update will not conflict or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS:

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Goal RM -4: Water Conservation. A community that protects and conserves limited water resources.

Policy RM -4.3: Distribution. Utilize the most recent available water conservation technology and green infrastructure to ensure an efficient and cost -effective distribution system.

Policy RM-4.5: Stormwater. Work cooperatively with local water agencies to effectively and efficiently manage stormwater runoff as part of the City’s multipronged water conservation strategy.

Action RM-4.1: Develop educational outreach designed to increase public participation in water conservation and water quality awareness through printed material and the City’s website and social media accounts.

Page 224 of 486 ends

Findings

Page 131 of 305 ends

PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT
Goal PS -2: Flooding. A community that is protected from the dangers of flood and inundation hazards.

Policy PS-2.2: New Development. Avoid and minimize flood risks for new development.

Policy PS -2.7: Stormwater Runoff. Require new developments that add substantial amounts of impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Policy PS -2.8: Critical Facilities. Prohibit development of new essential and critical facilities and lifeline services in the 100-year floodplain.

Policy PS -2.9: Aquifer Recharge. Work collaboratively with local water agencies to create opportunities for successful aquifer recharge.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
Policy CSF -2.5: Use of Recycled Water. Encourage the use of recycled water in development projects and landscaping; implement best practices (e.g., dual plumbing) to expand recycled water use when safe, financially feasible, and available.

Page 225 of 486 ends

La Verne City CouncilJanuary 21, 2025

La Verne City Council
January 21, 2025