San Dimas City Council
May 28, 2024

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 2 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
& 1136 Cherokee Court, 315 E. Baseline Road and an unaddressed parcel, 245 E. Baseline Road, and 1117, 1121, 1129, 1139, 1145, 1151 & 1150 N. Walnut Avenue.

On March 28, 2024, the Development Plan Review Board, at a regularly scheduled meeting, recommended approval to the Planning Commission of DPRB No. 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 for the design and construction of seven (7) detached single-family residences along with the associated removal of 11 mature trees.

On April 18, 2024, the Planning Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting, voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Council of the project applications along with recommending adoption of the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution 2024-30, adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-29, approving General Plan Amendment 23-0001, and Tentative Tract Map 22-0001; and as recommended by the Development Plan Review Board, Case No. 22-0015 and Tree Removal Permit 22-0029.

3. Introduce Ordinance 1308, approving Zone Change 22-0001.

FISCAL IMPACT
The scope of the project includes expanding the width of Cherokee Court from the cul-de-sac to Baseline Road as well as adding sidewalks and trees that are not currently in place. The additional increase in street size and the new sidewalks and trees would have to be maintained by the City moving forward. While the new developments would generate property tax income, it is unlikely to generate enough revenue to support future maintenance and replacement costs of the additional assets.

BACKGROUND
The Applicant, Stan Stringfellow, on behalf of Development 1 Group, submitted an application for the construction of seven (7) detached single-family residences and the associated removal of 11 mature trees in conjunction with Tentative Vesting Tract Map 22-0001 (83304), General Plan Amendment 23-0001 and Zone Change 22-0001. The development will be located at 327 E.

Baseline and the vacant lot directly to the north, located on the northwest corner of E. Baseline Road and Cherokee Court. The property is located within the Single-Family Agriculture (SF-A) 16,000 Zone. 327 E. Baseline Road is currently developed with a single-family residence, while the attached lot is vacant.

During review of the proposed project, Staff determined that 17 surrounding properties should have their Zoning and Land Use designation updated to create a single area of Single-Family zoned parcels with a Single-Family Low land use designation, as well as to be in compliance with their current development and minimum parcel size. At a City Council Study Session on March 23, 2021, the Council agreed with Staff’s recommendation and found that there was merit to allow for the formal submittal of applications to request a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for all the affected parcels, as well as the associated development applications.

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 3 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
At its March 28, 2024, regular meeting, the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) considered DPRB No. 22-0015 for the design and construction of seven (7) detached single family residences and TRP No. 22-0029 for the associated removal of 11 mature trees. After consideration, the DPRB recommended approval of the two applications to the Planning Commission, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The DPRB modified Condition 25, associated with the replacement of trees on the property, to call out the total number of replacement trees, add that 25% of the replacement trees must be 24” box, and to add for three (3) oak trees among the replacement trees to account for the removal of three (3) mature oaks due to the project. The DPRB did not take action on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Amendment or the Zone Change, as it was not under their purview.

At the April 18, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission considered the project applications, along with the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. After conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of all project applications and to adopt the IS/MND to the City Council (See Attachment 4 – PC Staff Report & Resolutions).

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The proposed subdivision project site is 1.4 acres in size and is located at the northwest corner of E. Baseline Road and Cherokee Court (See Figure 1). The property is currently zoned SF-A 16,000, as are the properties across Cherokee Court to the east and the adjacent property to the west. Zone Change 22-0001, which is associated with the project, seeks to rezone these properties, along with others along Walnut Avenue, to SF-7,500, thus the proposed development has been designed to meet the SF-7500 development standards.

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 4 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The proposed subdivision will subdivide two (2) parcels to create seven (7) new lots and complete the end of the cul-de-sac street, bringing it up to Public Works’ standards (See Attachment 5 – Tentative Tract Map 83304). The Applicant has submitted a vesting Tentative Tract Map, which locks in place the development standards and regulations that may be applied to the properties.

All seven (7) new residences will front on and have vehicular access from Cherokee Court.

Figure 1 – Proposed Subdivision Site outlined in green and areas for Rezoning and General Plan Amendment in Red.

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 5 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
The new lots will range in area from 7,920 square feet to 11,293 square feet, which will meet the minimum lot area required for the SF-7,500 zone. The table below shows the proposed lot size for each lot, with residence size and lot coverage.

Lot # Plan
Type
Lot Size
(Required Min.
7,500)
Lot Width
(Min. 70’)
Residence Size (With Garage)
(Min. 1,200 SF for 3 bedrooms + 150
FT for each additional bedroom)
Lot
Coverage
(Max. 35%)
1 A 8,861 Sq Ft 101’ 3,739 Sq Ft 27.43%
2 B 7,920 Sq Ft 92’ 3,979 Sq Ft
(4,843 Sq Ft Option) 33.83%
3 B 7,920 Sq Ft 92’ 3,979 Sq Ft
(4,843 Sq Ft Option) 33.83%
4 A 7,920 Sq Ft 84’ 3,739 Sq Ft 30.69%
5 B 7,920 Sq Ft 92’ 3,979 Sq Ft
(4,843 Sq Ft Option) 33.83%
6 A 9,180 Sq Ft 80’ 3739 Sq Ft 26.48%
7 B 11,293 Sq Ft 42’ cul-de-sac
84’ rear
3,979 Sq Ft
(4,843 Sq Ft Option) 23.72%
Per the development standards for the proposed SF-7500 zone, lots of 7,500 square feet to 9,999 square feet must have a minimum width of 70 feet at the street. This minimum width may be reduced to thirty-five (35) feet for lots on a cul-de-sac, provided that the lot expands to at least the minimum width otherwise required (SDMC 18.24.040(C)(1). As seen in Attachment 5 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 83304, Lots One through Six meet the required 70-foot minimum width, while Lot Seven is less than 70 feet, but as it is located on a cul-de-sac and does expand to be greater than the 70-foot minimum width, meets the width requirements of the San Dimas Municipal Code.

As a condition of the development, the Applicant will be responsible for completing the existing public cul-de-sac street to Public Works’ standards. The project will require a ten (10) foot dedication along the west side of Cherokee Court for a sidewalk and public right-of-way. The Applicant will also be required to construct all sidewalks and plant public trees which will then be dedicated to and maintained by the City.

General Plan Amendment
All properties in San Dimas have been identified in the San Dimas General Plan Land Use Element and been assigned a land use. This land use designation controls what new uses can be developed on a given property at a basic level, such as commercial, industrial or residential.

For residential properties, the General Plan designation can also dictate the density of a given parcel. For example, San Dimas uses the General Plan designations of, among others, SingleFamily Very Low, which allows 0.2 to 3 units per acre, Single-Family Low which allows 3.1 to 6 units per acre and Low/Medium, which allows 6.1 to 8 units per acre. It is important to note that the General Plan designation only dictates the general use for a property, not the specific uses which will be allowed or the development standards that would apply to a property. The specifics on how a property may develop are contained within the zoning code, which must not contradict the General Plan designation.

Currently, the proposed subdivision project site at 327 E. Baseline Rd. and the adjacent lot to the north, have a General Plan designation of Single-Family Very Low, which allows for 0.2 to 3 units

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 6 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
per acre. In order to reach the density proposed for the development, five (5) units per acre, the properties will need to have their General Plan designation changed to Single-Family Low, which allows for 3.1 to 6 units per acre.

In addition to the two (2) subject parcels, Staff is proposing to amend the General Plan designation for the six (6) lots on the east side of Cherokee, the three (3) adjacent lots directly to the west of the subject property, and the seven (7) lots on the west side of N. Walnut Avenue from SingleFamily Very Low to Single-Family Low as a part of the project. There is one lot at the end of Cherokee Court that is designated as Commercial but has been developed with a residence that will also have its Land Use designation changed to Single-Family Low. This will create a contiguous area of Single-Family Low designated properties north of E. Baseline Road from the east side of N. Dixie Drive to the west side of N. Walnut Avenue. The seven (7) lots on N. Walnut range from 7,500 to 9,386 square feet and are not in compliance with the density limits prescribed by the current General Plan designation. Amending the General Plan designation for these lots to Single-Family Low corrects the situation, bringing the lots into compliance with the General Plan. The seven (7) lots on the east side of Cherokee are fully developed and do not have the street frontage to be subdivided any further. Changing the General Plan designation for these lots would not, even with the increased density provided by the Single-Family Low designation, allow for any further residential development, besides that already allowed by law, for these lots. Only the lots directly to the west could potentially be subdivided and take advantage of the extra density provided by the General Plan amendment. However, as these lots will be landlocked with no direct access to a residential street, the redevelopment possibilities for these lots, even with the increase in potential density, will be limited. While the amendment is required to allow the development to move forward, the amendment will also bring some consistency to the neighborhood and correct existing noncompliance density situations discussed above.

Figure 2 – Existing Land Use Map (on left) and Proposed Land Use Map (on right). Areas to be amended are outlined in dashed lines.

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 7 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Zone Change
In order for the development to be allowed, the Applicant is requesting a zone change for the two (2) subject lots from Single-Family Agriculture 16,000 to Single-Family 7,500. When Staff completed a preliminary review of the Applicant’s application, Staff requested that the seven (7) parcels along the east side of Cherokee Court, the three (3) parcels directly to the west of the subject site, and seven (7) parcels on the west side of N. Walnut Avenue to be included in the rezoning in order to create a contiguous area of SF-7,500 zoning and to correct the zoning on properties that are currently non-conforming with the San Dimas Municipal Code. For SingleFamily zoning, the numbers after the zone indicate the minimum lot size for any new developments. In this case, the Applicant is asking for Single-Family zoning with a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size. The development standards for Single-Family and Single-Family Agriculture are identical; the Single-Family Agriculture section of the code refers to the SingleFamily section for all development standards. Changing the zoning on any lot currently zoned SFA 16,000 will not create any non-conforming residences, as all residences were designed to meet the SF zone standards, including minimum lot size.

Per the standards of the SF-A Zone, Horse keeping is allowed on SF-A lots as long as they are at least 16,000 square feet in total area. The change of zoning from SF-A 16,000 to S-F 7,500 would eliminate the ability to keep horses on the properties to be rezoned. However, the seven (7) lots on N. Walnut Ave and six (6) of the seven existing (7) lots on Cherokee are under 16,000 square feet, meaning that horse keeping would not be an option even with the SF-A zoning. The northernmost lot on Cherokee Court, at 21,511 square feet, is large enough to keep horses, but is developed in such a way that meeting the distance requirements for corrals, 80 feet from residential structures on adjacent lots and 35 feet from residential structures on the subject lot, would be difficult to achieve, effectively eliminating the ability to keep horses. Of the three (3) adjacent lots to the west, only the bottom two (2) are large enough to currently keep horses.

Rezoning these properties would remove the ability to keep horses from these parcels.

Figure 3 – Existing Zoning Map (on left) and Proposed Zoning Map (on right). Areas to be rezoned are outlined in dashed lines.

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 8 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
The Single-Family Agriculture zone also allows for the keeping of potbellied pigs and other domestic animals. Potbellied pigs are subject to the same lot size requirements as horses, therefore only the two (2) large lots directly to the west would lose the ability to keep these pigs as pets. Other domestic animals, such as rabbits, fowl (excluding chickens), calves, goats and sheep, are allowed to be kept on any parcel greater than 11,000 square feet. All of the parcels on the east side of Cherokee Court and the three (3) parcels directly to the west are larger than 11,000 square feet. The rezoning would remove the right for these lots to keep the above animals.

Chickens, ducks and geese are allowed in the SF zone on any lot over 11,000 square feet, so properties would not lose the right to keep the above fowl, although the number of birds allowed would be reduced from a maximum of 20 to a maximum of 4.

Grading and Fencing
Cherokee Court currently sits slightly higher than the two lots on which development is proposed.

This difference runs from four (4) feet to portions where the street is basically level with the property. To allow for level lots and proper drainage, the parcels will be raised to be slightly higher than Cherokee Court. The parcels will also be graded to be slightly higher along the western property line to allow for drainage from the rear of the property towards Cherokee Court. Due to this, there will be an elevation difference between the newly created parcels and the existing parcels to the west.

A six (6) foot decorative masonry wall (tan split face with finished cap) is proposed to run along the rear (western) and street side (southern) property lines of the development. Due to the differences in elevation between the two properties, the masonry retaining walls (tan split face) may reach up to four (4) feet if measured from the adjacent property which, as described above, will sit lower than the proposed parcels. The combined height of the masonry wall and the retaining wall will be 10 feet at its highest level measured from the adjacent property to the west.

The interior walls separating the individual lots will be tan split face masonry walls to match the perimeter walls.

House Design
Two (2) different floor plans are being proposed for the project. Each floor plan is a two-story residence and will have two (2) different exterior treatments, a Spanish style and a “Del Norte” style, to provide variety among the residences (See Attachment 6 – Project Plans). Each floor plan will also have options to increase the livable space of a residence; these optional areas do not increase the lot coverage for any given parcel. The table below provides an overview for each plan.

Plan A Plan A – Option Plan B Plan B - Option
Floor Area 3,124 Sq Ft 3,290 Sq Ft 3,321 Sq Ft 4,185 Sq Ft Bedrooms 4 4 4 5 or 6
Bathrooms 3 w/ powder
room
3 w/ powder
room
3 w/ powder
room
4 w/ powder
room
Garage 615 Sq Ft
3 Cars
449 Sq Ft
2 Cars
658 Sq Ft
3 Cars
658 Sq Ft
3 Cars
Floor plan ‘A’ has a standard layout which provides for 3,124 square feet of floor area and a 615 three-car garage, one of the spots being in a tandem parking layout. The standard plan includes

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 9 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
four (4) bedrooms and 3.5 baths, with a primary bedroom with en suite bathroom and walk-in closet being on the first floor. An optional home office/playroom removes the tandem parking space in the garage to add a 166 square foot room to the first floor.

Floor plan ‘A’ will be offered in two (2) exterior treatments; a Spanish style and a “Del Norte” style.

The Spanish style will feature a sand stucco finish, S-tile concrete roof tiles, decorative iron vents, and decorative accent shutters (See Figure 4). The front door, garage door and window shutters will be a dark wood to provide contrast to the light stucco. The “Del Norte” style will feature a sand stucco finish, S-tile concrete roof tiles, foam accent trim around the front windows, and a brick accent wall on the front façade (See Figure 5). Exposed corbels will accent the roof line on all facades. Refer to Attachment 7 for the color and material boards.

Floor plan ‘B’ has a standard layout with 3,321 square feet of floor area and a 658 square foot three-car garage. The standard plan includes four (4) bedrooms and 3.5 baths, with a primary Figure 4– Floor Plan A, Spanish Style Option
Figure 5 – Floor Plan A, Del Norte Style Option

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 10 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
bedroom with en suite bathroom and walk-in closet on the first floor. An optional addition to the residence will add 864 square feet of space to the second floor with options for a second primary bedroom, or an additional two (2) bedrooms with upstairs laundry.

Floor plan ‘B’ will also be offered in two (2) exterior treatments. The Spanish style will feature a sand stucco finish, S-tile concrete roof tiles, foam accents around the windows, a brick accent wall and decorative tiles along the front façade (See Figure 6). The front door, window trim, roof and front accent walls are a dark color to provide contrast with the light stucco. The “Del Norte” style will feature S-tile concrete roof tiles, a stone accent wall on the front façade with a half stone wall under the front window, foam corbels, and foam trim around the windows (See Figure 7).

Figure 6 – Floor Plan B, Spanish Style Option
Figure 7 – Floor Plan B, Del Norte Option

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 11 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
Development Standards
The proposed project is associated with Zone Change 22-0001, which seeks to change the existing zoning of Single-Family Agriculture (SF-A) 16,000 to Single-Family (SF) 7,500. Per the proposed zoning, all residences must have a front yard setback of at least 20 feet, side setbacks of 12 feet on the driveway side and 5 feet on the opposite side, street side setback 10 feet, and a maximum building height of 35 feet. As illustrated in the table below, all of the proposed residences meet these standards.

Lot Front Yard Setback
Side Yard
Setback
(Driveway)
Other
Side Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
(Street)
House Height
1 25’ 16’ - 25’ 26’ - 8”
2 22’ 12’ 13’ - 25’ - 5”
3 22’ 13’ 12’ - 25’ - 5”
4 20’ 12’ 12’ - 26’ - 8”
5 22’ 12’ 13’ - 25’ - 5”
6 20’ 12’ 13’ - 7” - 26’ - 8”
7 31’ - 7” 12’ 28’ - 25’ - 5”
Tree Removal
The proposed development will require the removal of 21 trees; one dead tree, nine (9) trees which do not meet the minimum size criteria set forth in the San Dimas Municipal Code and 11 mature trees. Of the 11 mature trees, there are five (5) oaks and one (1) each of Xylosmas, Tillea, Chorissia, Liquidambar, Mexican Fan Palm and Pecan (See Attachment 8 – Arborist Report).

Of the 11 mature trees to be removed, five (5) trees, which includes four (4) oak trees, are along the eastern property line adjacent to Cherokee Court. As a condition of approval for the tract map, the applicant is being required to complete the street and provide a sidewalk on the west side of Cherokee Court. This condition necessitates the removal of the trees along Cherokee Court. The remaining six (6) trees are located in locations that either prevent the demolition of the existing residence or constrain the development of the new residences. See Attachment 9 – Tree Mitigation Plan for the locations of all existing and proposed trees.

The Applicant has provided a landscape plan that proposes 42 new trees spread among the seven (7) parcels. The removal of the 11 mature trees will require 22 replacement trees. The Development Plan Review Board called for 25% of the replacement trees to be a minimum of 24- inch box in size and for three (3) oaks to be replanted on the property due to the removal of three (3) mature oak trees. The remaining 20 trees are being provided as part of the landscape plan for the development. Of the 42 trees, 17 will be California Sycamore trees that will be planted as street trees. The remaining trees will consist of 20 trees to be planted in the front yards of the seven (7) parcels, and five (5) trees being planted as screening along the northern most property line. Parks and Recreation has reviewed the proposed tree plan and has not expressed any issues to Staff.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative #1 – Postpone Consideration of Project Until Discussion of City Direction on Properties Allowing Horse Keeping is Completed

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 12 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
On March 23, 2021, the City Council held a study session to discuss the Cherokee Court subdivision General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The presentation was similar to what is presented in this staff report resulting in converting some properties with horse keeping ability to SF 7,500 lots that would not allow for horse keeping. The conclusion of this item was for the City Council to move forward the submittal of formal application to request a general plan amendment, zone change and associated applications with this proposal as presented in this staff report. The City acted on a motion by Councilmember Vienna, a second by Councilmember John Ebiner and voted 4-0 to approve with Councilmember Eric Weber being absent.

On April 12, 2022, the City Council considered a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 501 and 509 E. Baseline Road to create nine single-family residential lots of approximately 7,500 square feet. The result was to remove the horse keeping ability of the original lots in the new development. The City Council considered the development and with a motion by Councilmember Vienna and second by Councilmember Ebiner, the City Council rejected the request with a unanimous vote of 5-0. In the rejection, multiple members of the City cited the desire to protect the dwindling number of horse keeping eligible properties. To this end, upon a motion by Councilmember Vienna and second by Councilmember Ebiner, the City Council directed staff to return with a date not specified with a discussion of San Dimas Municipal Code Section 18.28.040 to broadly consider how to best protect horse keeping in San Dimas.

As of the date of this report, the discussion on horse keeping has not occurred. While the Cherokee development originally initiated in 2021, before the 2022 denial of a similar project nearby, was approved to move forward with applications, the implications of the City Council’s action in 2022 to protect horse keeping properties has a material influence on whether the City Council should consider approving the project applications before properly discussing their policy desires in protecting horse keeping property. Thus, postponing would allow for this discussion while preserving the current work performed by the development to bring this project to its final approval.

The recommendation in this staff report remains to approve the developer’s request based on the City Council’s direction on March 23, 2021; however, Alternative #1 provides another pathway to take into account the concerns raised during the City Council’s April 12, 2022 discussion and future discussion of the relevant municipal code section.

Alternative #2 – Deny Request for General Plan Amendment and Rezone The discussion of this alternative is similar to Alternative #1. However, the difference between a denial and a postponement is significant. Denial would reject the project and in the case the City Council later decides that the Cherokee project should continue, the applicant would have to start over at significant cost and delay. Postponement would preserve the City and developer’s ability to consider the project at its current state in the application process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed development is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. On the basis of the Initial Study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, a MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines. The MND was circulated for the required 30-day public review period from February 19, 2024, until March 20, 2024. Staff received two comments during the comment period, one from Caltrans encouraging bicycle and pedestrian facilities/improvements

TTM 22-0001, GPA 23-0001, ZC 22-0001, DPRB 22-0015 and TRP 22-0029 Page 13 For the Meeting of May 14, 2024
and recommendations for construction vehicles and one from an adjacent resident which did not agree with the rezoning. These comments, and any responses, have been provided in Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Responses to Comments.

Respectfully submitted,
Ken Fichtelman
Associate Planner
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2024- 30 (IS/MND)

2. Ordinance 1308

3. Resolution 2024-29 TTM

4. April 14, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report, PC-Resolution 1676 & PC-Resolution 1677

5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 83304

6. Project Plans with Color Elevations

7. Color and Materials Boards

8. Arborist Tree Report

9. Tree Mitigation Plan

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-30

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22-0001, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 23-0001, ZONE CHANGE 22-0001, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW BOARD 22-0015 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 22-0029 PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS

AMENDED
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Development 1 Group, submitted an application to subdivide two (2) existing parcels into seven (7) new parcels to be developed with detached single-family residences, amend the General Plan designation from Single Family Very Low (.02 - 3) to Single Family Low (3.1 – 6), change the Zoning from SF-A 16,000 to S-F 7,500; and WHEREAS, the City identified seventeen additional parcels during the initial review of the project to have their General Plan designation amended from Single Family Very Low (.02 - 3) and Commercial to Single Family Low (3.1 - 6) and have the Zoning changed from SF-A 16,000 to S-F 7,500; and
WHEREAS, the project affects the following described real properties:
327 East Gladstone Street and an unaddressed parcel (APNs 8661-017-010 & -011), 1102, 1108, 1114, 1120, 1126, 1132 & 1136 Cherokee Court (APNs 8661-017-021, -022, -023, - 024, -028, -029 & -027), 315 E. Baseline Road and an unaddressed Parcel (APNs 8661-017-009 & -008), 245 E. Baseline Road (APN 8661-014-005), and 1117, 1121, 1129, 1139, 1145, 1151 & 1150 (APNs 8661-014-006, -007, -008, -009, -010, -011 & 8661-017-007); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, during its regularly scheduled meeting on April 18, 2024, adopted Resolution PC-1676, recommending adoption of the IS/MND to the City Council, along with Resolution PC 1677, recommending approval of the related Project applications to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., herein referred to as “CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA, the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the “CEQA Guidelines”), the City is the “lead agency” for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines by L&L Environmental to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public/responsible agency review on February 19, 2024 through March 20, 2024 and was also made available for review on the City’s website at www.cityofsandimas.com. A complete copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Community Development Department at 245 E. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, California; and

Resolution 2024-30 Page 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 28, 2024
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (b) individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and to hear and consider evidence for and against the proposed Project and related actions and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to the City Council meeting of May 28th, 2024 in order to review additional information regarding the proposed project, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully and independently reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented with respect to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, including, but not limited to, the staff reports, studies, and all written and oral testimony presented.

WHEREAS, failure to adopt Resolution 2024-30 constitutes a denial for the Proposed Project as all other associated applications cannot be approved without the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Councilmembers at the hearing, the City Council now finds as follows:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

B. All actions required to be taken by applicable law related to the preparation circulation, and review of the MND have been taken.

C. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared consisting of the Initial Study, all comments and recommendations received during the public review period, and a Mitigation and Reporting Program. The MND was posted on the City’s Website at www.sandimasca.gov on February 19, 2024. On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Project it has been determined that the Proposed Project may have a potential significant effect on the environment which, however, will be mitigated to a level that is less than significant and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a period of not less than 30 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(b).

Therefore the City Council finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, based on the findings contained herein and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and finds, on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the recommended adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City of San Dimas City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

Resolution 2024-30 Page 3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 28, 2024
D. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached hereto as Exhibit A), as this Proposed Project would not result in any significant, adverse environmental impacts with the mitigation imposed. The full record is available for review in the Planning Division.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Dimas does hereby resolve that:

SECTION 1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, based on the findings contained herein and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and, on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment. This determination reflects the City of San Dimas City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION 2. The City Council adopts and approves the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, and that the decision shall be final. A copy of this Resolution shall be mailed to the Applicant/Property Owner. The City Council directs the Director of Community Development, located at the Community Development Department, 245 E. Bonita Ave., San Dimas, CA 91773, to serve as the custodian of all documents or other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the Council's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be based. The City Council authorizes and directs the Director of Community Development, or designee, to execute and file with the Los Angeles County Clerk, within five business days of the adoption of a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Notice of Determination that complies with CEQA Guidelines, section 15075.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 28th day of May, 2024. ____________________________________
Emmett G. Badar, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

Resolution 2024-30 Page 4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
May 28, 2024
I, Debra Black, City Clerk, hereby certify that Resolution 2024-30 was adopted by the City Council of San Dimas at its regular meeting of May 28, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Debra Black, City Clerk

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Cherokee Court Residential Project
General Plan Amendment No. GP 23-0001
Zone Change No. ZC 22-0001
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Lead Agency
City of San Dimas Planning Division
Ken Fichtelman, Associate Planner
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
Telephone: (909) 394-6256
(VTM) [email protected]
Project Proponent
Development 1 Group, Inc.
2001 E. Financial Way, Suite 101
Glendora, CA 91741
Telephone: (626) 705-0583
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by
L&L Environmental, Inc.
721 Nevada Street, Suite 307
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone: (909) 335-9897
[email protected]
November 7, 2023
Exhibit A

City of San Dimas page ii
Cherokee Court Residential Project

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Part 2 - Initial Study
(To Be Completed by Staff/Consultant)
Planning Division
245 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773
(909) 394-6250

1. Project File: Vesting Tentative Tract (VTM) No. 83304

2. Related Files: General Plan Amendment No. GP 23-0001, Zone Change No. ZC 22-0001

3. Description of Project: The Project Area consists of 6.80 net acres of non-contiguous land. The Project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Single Family Very Low (0 to 3 du/ac) and Commercial to Single-Family Low (3 to 60 du/ac); amend the Zoning Map from SF-A 16000 to SF-7500; and subdivide a 1.59 net acre portion of the Project Area into seven residential lot sizes ranging from 7,920 square feet to 11,293 square feet. The proposed homes range from 3,124 square feet to 4,185 square feet (see Section 3.0, Project Description, for additional details).

4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Development 1 Group, Inc.
2001 E. Financial Way, Suite 101, Glendora, CA 91741

5. General Plan Designation: Single-Family Very Low (0.2-3) and Commercial

6. Zoning: SF-A 16000

7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings): The Project Area consists of land developed with single-family residences and vacant or underdeveloped land.

Surrounding land uses include commercial buildings and a church to the north, and single-family residential development to the east, west, and south.

8. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of San Dimas Planning Division
245 East Bonita Avenue, San Dimas CA 91773

9. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number:

Ken Fichtelman, Associate Planner, 909-394-6256

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Letters were sent by the City of San Dimas (the Lead Agency), to four Native American Tribes on June 27, 2023, asking if they wished to participate in the AB 52 consultation process and nineteen Native American Tribes on August 28, 2023, asking if they wished to participate in the SB 18 consultation process concerning the Proposed Project. The city received three responses. Two individuals from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation on the project. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) sent a letter but requested no additional consultation at this time. Based on the results of the consultation, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 are required. Therefore, the consultation has been concluded.

11. Other agencies whose approval is required: Compliance with Los Angeles County MS-4 permit.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
City of San Dimas page iii
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................ 1

1.2 Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation ........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Public Review of the Document............................................................................................................. 7

2.0 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Project Description......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Project Location................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Proposed Improvements..................................................................................................................... 17

4.0 Environmental Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................................... 25

4.3 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................ 28

4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................................ 39

4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................... 44

4.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................................. 51

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 54

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................................................. 60

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................................... 63

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 70

4.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 75

4.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................... 79

4.13 Noise.................................................................................................................................................... 80

4.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 88

4.15 Public Services..................................................................................................................................... 90

4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 93

4.17 Transportation..................................................................................................................................... 94

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................... 97

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................................. 103

4.20 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................................. 109

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................................... 110

5.0 List of Preparers........................................................................................................................................... 114 Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
City of San Dimas page iv
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Area........................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3-1 Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Map ........................................................................ 12 Figure 3-2 Zoning Map Amendment.................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3-3 Vesting Tentative Map No. 83304.................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-4 Architectural Elevations.................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-5 Concept Landscape Plan................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 4-1 Brackett Field Airport Compatibility Zones....................................................................................... 67 Figure 4-2 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area................................................................... 69 Figure 4-3 Noise Measurement Locations......................................................................................................... 81 Tables
Table 1.2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation-Project Area A......................................... 1 Table 2.1-1 Project Areas...................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2.1-2 Existing Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications-Project Area A................................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3.1-1 Summary of Requested Land Use Entitlements by Project Area ...................................................... 10 Table 3.1-2 Description of Single-Family Very Low and Single-Family Low Land Use and Zoning ....................... 11 Table 4.1-1 Consistency With Applicable Regulations Governing Scenic Quality ................................................ 21 Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds............................. 29 Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.............................................. 29 Table 4.3-3 Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)...................................... 35 Table 4.3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions.......................................................................................... 35 Table 4.3-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds.............................................................................. 36 Table 4.3-6 Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................. 37 Table 4.5-1 Historic Resources Found Within a .50 Mile Radius of the Subject Property ................................... 45 Table 4.8-1 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 60 Table 4.8-2 Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs............................................. 61 Table 4.11-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................................................... 76 Table 4.13-1 San Dimas Noise Limits-Residential.................................................................................................. 80 Table 4.13-2 Noise Measurement Locations......................................................................................................... 81 Table 4.13-3 Construction Activity Noise .............................................................................................................. 82 Table 4.18-1 Native American Tribal Consultation Notification Process under SB18 and AB52............................ 97 Table 4.19-1 Project Waste Generation Compared to Landfill Daily Throughput ............................................... 107 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study, Entech Consulting Group, September 2023 Appendix B Habitat Assessment, L&L Environmental, March 2023 Appendix C Historic Resource Evaluation, L&L Environmental, May 9, 2022 Appendix D Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Duco Engineering, July 19, 2021 Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, PIC Environmental Services, January 19, 2022 Appendix F Drainage Report, Andreasen Engineering, Inc., September 13, 2022 Appendix G Noise Study, Entech Consulting Group, Inc., May 2023 Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 1
Cherokee Court Residential Project

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, for a project that is not exempt from CEQA, a preliminary analysis of the proposed project be conducted to determine whether a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project. This preliminary analysis is called an “Initial Study.” Based on the Initial Study prepared for this Project, the City of San Dimas Planning Department is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this Project by the City Council. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a written statement by the City that the Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, but the Project is revised, or mitigation measures are required, to eliminate or mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.

1.2 Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Table 1.2-1 identifies the environmental impacts for Project Area A that require mitigation. All other topics either have “No Impact” or a “Less than Significant Impact” as identified throughout this Initial Study.

Table 1.2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation-Project Area A Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure

4.4 (a) Biological
Resources
The trees and structures on Project
Area A provide potentially suitable
roosting habitat for nesting birds
and special status bats.

BIO-1. Nesting Bird Survey. Project activities, including initial vegetation trimming/clearing, tree trimming/
removal, ground disturbance, and demolition, shall be
avoided during the nesting season (January 1 to
September 15). If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a nesting bird clearance survey is required within three (3) days prior to the start of Project activities during the nesting season. If active nests are present, avoidance of nest sites is required and a buffer of 300 to 500 feet (or as determined by a biologist) is recommended until a
biologist has verified that juvenile birds are no longer dependent on the nest, or the nest has otherwise become inactive. An active nest is defined as a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles, or a nest utilized for
reproduction.

BIO-2. Pre-Construction Bat Survey. To the extent feasible, demolition or disturbance to suitable bat roosting habitat shall be scheduled between October 1 and February 28,
outside of the maternity roosting season. If trees must be removed during the maternity season (March 1 to
September 30), or if structures must be removed at any
time of the year, a pre-construction survey by a qualified bat specialist is required within seven (7) days prior to disturbance. Maternity season lasts from March 1 to
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 2
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
September 30 and trees or structures determined to be
maternity roosts shall be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Hibernating colonies shall be left in place until a qualified biologist determines that the bats are no longer hibernating. Bats shall be allowed to escape prior to demolition of structures. This may be
accomplished by placing one-way exclusionary devices into areas where bats are entering a structure that allows bats to exit but not re-enter.

4.5 (b) Cultural
Resources
Subsurface archaeological
resources may be encountered
during ground disturbance.

CUL-1: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior
to the commencement of grading or excavation, workers
conducting construction activities and their foremen will receive Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training from a qualified archaeologist regarding the potential for sensitive archaeological and
paleontological resources to be unearthed during grading activities. The workers will be directed to report any
specimens of bone, stone, ceramics, or other
archaeological artifacts or features observed during
grading and/or other construction activities to their
foremen and to cease grading activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist and Native American cultural monitor is notified of the
discovery and can assess their significance. The WEAP shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel
about the area’s environmental conditions and the
environmental protection measures that must be adhered
to by all workers throughout the duration of Project
construction. Training materials shall be languageappropriate for all construction personnel. Upon completion of the WEAP, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended the program, understand all protection measures, and shall abide by all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with the
construction foreman at the Project field construction
office and shall be made available to any resource agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the Project later, the construction foreman shall ensure that new personnel receive training before they start working.

The archaeologist shall provide hard copies of the WEAP presentation to the construction foreman.

CUL-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan. If historical or
unique archaeological resources are discovered during
construction, the contractor shall halt construction
activities in the immediate area and notify the City. A qualified archaeologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s).

Additionally, any Native American Tribe who consulted on the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 3
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
§21080.3.1(b) (AB52), shall be contacted regarding any
pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the
nature of the discovery. The Tribe may provide input with regard to significance and treatment. A Monitoring and
Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the qualified
archaeologist. The qualified archaeologist shall
recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring
necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s).

Construction activities may continue on other parts of the site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique archaeological resources takes place.

4.13 (a)
Construction
Noise
There may be temporary
construction noise impacts during
grading on the eastern portion of
Project Area A.

NOI-1. Grading Noise Reduction. The following notes shall be placed on the grading plan:
“The construction contractor will use the following source controls when working within 60 feet of occupied
residential buildings:
- Use of noise-producing equipment will be limited to
the interval from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no
construction on Sundays.
- For all noise-producing equipment, use types and
models that have the lowest horsepower and the
lowest noise-generating potential practical for their
intended use.
- The construction contractor will ensure that all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly
operating (tuned-up) and lubricated and that mufflers
are working adequately.
- Have only necessary equipment onsite.
- Use manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup
alarms”.

4.18 (b), Tribal
Cultural
Resources
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation indicated that
there is a possibility that tribal
cultural resources may be
encountered during grading
activities on Project Area A.

TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor. Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities:

A. The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be
retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing
activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree
removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and
trenching.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 4
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or
the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a
ground-disturbing activity.

C. The Tribal monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant grounddisturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities,
soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other
facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts,
remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial
goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the
project applicant and to the lead agency.

D. Tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated
point of contact for the project applicant or lead
agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the
project or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the
Kizh to the project applicant and lead agency that no
future, planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease
(i.e., 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and
the Kizh archaeologist. After any necessary assessment
and analysis and reporting of the finds by the project
archaeologist, the resources will be transferred to the Kizh for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural, and/or historical
purposes.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC
§5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation in any
state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.

Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in
Public Resources Code §5097.98, are also to be treated
according to this statute.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 5
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods
are discovered or recognized on the project site, then
all construction activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code
§7050.5 dictates that there shall be no further
excavation of disturbance of the burial, or any nearby
area reasonably suspected overlie adjacent remains
until the County Coroner has determined the nature of
the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human
remains to be those of a Native American or has reason
to believe they are Native American, he or she shall
contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native
American Heritage Commission and Public Resources
Code §5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code
§5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site away from discovered human remains
and/or burial goods. (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains
and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler
Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the
material. If no institution accepts the archaeological
material, it shall be offered to a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:

A. The term “human remains” encompasses more than
human bones and includes the soil immediately
surrounding the burial or cremation, the funerary
objects placed with the deceased and ceremonial
objects.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or
more burials, the discovery location shall be evaluated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be
created.

C. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human
remains either at the time of death or later. Other
items made exclusively for burial purposes or to
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 6
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
contain human remains can also be considered as
associated funerary objects.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot
be fully documented and recovered on the same day,
the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a
steel plate that can only be moved by heavy equipment
will be placed over the excavation opening to protect
the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available or suitable for use, a 24-hour guard should be posted
outside of working hours until the remains can be
suitably secured from disturbance.

E. The Tribe will work with the project proponent (project applicant/developer and/or landowner) to recommend
measures to keep the human remains in situ and
protected in place. In the event that preservation in
place is not possible, despite a good faith effort by the project proponent, before ground-disturbing activities
may resume in the immediate area, the landowner will
designate a reburial /repatriation site. This location
will be agreed upon by the Tribe and the landowner
and shall be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials, human
remains, or associated funerary objects.

F. Any human remains and associated funerary objects
that are moved from a burial location will be placed
into opaque cloth bags together with any associated
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. The bags will be secured in a container on
site or in a location agreed upon by the Tribe and the
project proponent. All recovered remains will be
reburied within six months of recovery.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure any excavation is treated
carefully, ethically, and respectfully. If reburial involves data recovery approved by the Tribe, documentation
shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery documentation related
to the human remains or associated burial goods shall
be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data
recovery is performed by the project archaeologist,
once analysis is complete, a final report shall be written and submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. Unless
expressly agreed to by the Kizh, the Tribe does NOT
authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human
remains.

4.19 (a), Utilities
and Service
Systems
The construction/installation of
facilities will result in some level of
ground disturbance, either onsite
or in the adjacent public streets,
BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 through TCR-3.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction City of San Dimas page 7
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Environmental
Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
which could impact biological
resources, cultural resources, tribal
cultural resources, or generate
excessive construction noise.

1.3 Public Review of the Document
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the following entities:
1) Organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of San Dimas.
2) Responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); and 3) The Los Angeles County Clerk.

According to CEQA Guidelines §15204(b), in reviewing this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the Project may have a significant effect, they should: 1) Identify the specific effect, 2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and 3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.

Comments are to be submitted to:

City of San Dimas Planning Division
245 East Bonita Avenue
San Dimas CA 91773
Contact: Ken Fichtelman, Associate Planner
(909) 394-6256
[email protected]
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting City of San Dimas page 8
Cherokee Court Residential Project

2.0 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “…the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced…” (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]). Because a Notice of Preparation was not required, the environmental setting for the Project is February 2023, which is the date the Project’s environmental analysis commenced.

The Project Area analyzed in this Initial Study Checklist consists of two non-contiguous areas totaling approximately 6.80 net acres. For purposes of this analysis, the two areas identified as Project Area A and Project Area B as shown in Figure 2-1, Project Area, below.

Figure 2-1 Project Area

B B A B
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting City of San Dimas page 9
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Table 2.1-1 Project Areas
Project Area Physical Characteristics
Gross
Acres
A Vacant Land, Proposed 7- Single-Family Homes per VTM No. 83304 1.59 B Existing Single-Family Homes (with RV Parking Lot on a portion) 5.21 Total 6.80
Source: Los Angeles County Assessor Portal: https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapsearch?c=- 118.24169999999799,34.05409999999941,11, accessed October 24, 2023 A summary of the surrounding physical setting, General Plan Land Use Designation, and Zoning Classification is shown in the table below.

Table 2.1-2 Existing Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning ClassificationsProject Area A Location Current Land Use
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning
Project Area A
(VTM No. 83304) Single-family home, garage, shed Single Family Very Low Single Family-Agriculture (SF-A-16000)
Project Area B
North Barrios L and Associates
(Landscaping Contractor)
Commercial CH (Commercial Highway)
South East Baseline Road followed by
single-family homes
Single Family Low Single-Family (SF-7500)
East Cherokee Court followed by singlefamily homesSingle Family Very Low Single Family-Agriculture (SF-A-16000)
West Single-family home with an RV
parking lot.

Single Family Very Low Single Family-Agriculture
(SF-A-16000)
Source: Field inspection, City of San Dimas Land Use Map, City of San Dimas Zoning Map-General Plan Land Use Map August 2020, Google Earth Pro, Accessed February 20, 2023.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 10
Cherokee Court Residential Project

3.0 Project Description

3.1 Project Location
The Project Area is generally located in the northeast portion of Los Angeles County, California, and is situated south of the San Gabriel Mountains/Angeles National Forest. It is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of East Baseline Road and Cherokee Court in the northern portion of the City of San Dimas. The Project Area can be found within Section 35 of Township 1 North, Range 9 West as shown on the USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle of San Dimas.

3.2 Project Description
The Project Area consists of two non-contiguous areas identified as Project Area A and Project Area B (see Figure 2-1, Project Area). The purpose of Project Area A is the development of 7 lots for the construction of single-family homes. The purpose of Project Area B is to provide for future development of single-family homes, amends non-conforming uses, and provides consistency in zoning.

Per CEQA Guidelines §15378(c), the term “Project” refers to the whole of an action and the underlying physical activity being approved, not to each government approval. Thus, even if the City needs to grant more than one approval for a project (i.e., the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and the Zone Change (ZC) for the properties not part of VTM No. 83304), only one CEQA document should be prepared. Thus, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration covers all the actions as described in Section 3.0 Project Description.

Table 3.2-1 Summary of Requested Land Use Entitlements by Project Area Project
Area &
Net Acres* Initiated By
Proposed General Plan Land
Use Map Amendment
Proposed Zoning Map
Amendment
Development
Application Request
A

1.59 Project
Proponent
From: Single Family Very Low
To: Single Family Low
Single-Family (SF-7500) VTM No. 83304 to
create 7 lots for the
construction of singlefamily homes.

B

5.21 City of San Dimas From: Single Family Very Low,
and Commercial
To: Single Family Low
From: Single FamilyAgriculture (SF-A-16000)
and CH (Commercial
Highway).

To: Single-Family (SF
7500)
None
*Acres are based on the Los Angeles County Assessor Portal https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapsearch?c=- 118.24169999999799,34.05409999999941,11) and are used for property identification purposes only. The actual acres will be determined through the City’s adoption of the GPA and ZC.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 11
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Table 3.2-2 Description of Single-Family Very Low and Single-Family Low Land Use and Zoning General Plan Designation Corresponding Zone and Density Typical Residential Uses Single Family Very Low S-F Zone 0.2–3 du/ac Single-family detached and large-scale residential development in a semirural setting
with lot sizes generally larger than ½ acre.

Single Family Low SF Zone 3–6 du/ac Single-family detached and larger residential development on lots ranging from 7,000 to
9,000 square feet at a maximum density of 6
du/ac.

Source: General Plan Housing Element (2021-2029 Update), Table HE-3.4, Primary Zones Allowing Housing The Project Proponent, Development 1 Group, Inc., submitted an application for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) No. 83304 (Figure 3-3) to subdivide 1.59 acres into seven single-family homes on lots ranging from 7,920 square feet to 11,293 square feet, with a gross density of 5 dwelling units per acre (Project Area A as shown in Figure 2.1, Project Area). Additionally, the Project Proponent is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from Single-Family Very Low to Single-Family Low, which would allow for a density of 3.1 to 6 dwelling units per acre, and a Zone Change (ZC) to SF-7500, which requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet.

As part of this application, the City is also proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 3-1) and the Zoning Map (Figure 3-2) for Project Area B (as shown on Figure 2.1, Project Area), which will allow the appropriate General Plan Land Use designation and zoning classification to create a contiguous and cohesive surrounding area with SF-7500 zoning and the Single-Family Low General Plan land use designation. It would also bring the lots on the west side of North Walnut Avenue into compliance with both the Zoning and the General Plan, as those properties are currently nonconforming due to their existing density and lot size. In addition, a single lot (1136 Cherokee Court) that, although developed with a single-family residence, still has a General Plan designation of Commercial. This inconsistency would be remedied as part of the Project.

Only Project Area A is proposed for new development.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 12
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 3-1 Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Map Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 13
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 3-2 Zoning Map Amendment
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
7500
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 14
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 3-3 Vesting Tentative Map No. 83304
Subdivide Project Area A (1.59 acres)
into seven residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet
to accommodate seven single-family
detached homes ranging from 3,124
square feet to 4,185 square feet. The
proposed site improvements consist of
the demolition of the existing site
improvements, including the existing
house and accessory structures on the
south end of the property. Development of these lots will include remedial grading to create firm, competent
building pads to support the proposed
homes, surface grading to achieve
proper elevations and contours,
installation of stormwater
retention/infiltration devices along the
easterly street front to meet current
Low Impact Development standards,
and street/ sidewalk improvements to
serve the proposed homes. Access to
each lot will be via drive approaches off
Cherokee Court, which is immediately
adjacent to the east.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 15
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Development Plan Review
The Project is proposing two-floor plans. Each plan is two stories as follows:
▪ Plan 1 standard – 3,124 square feet; Optional Plan 1 – 3,290 square feet ▪ Plan 2 standard – 3,321 square feet; Optional Plan 2 – 4,185 square feet Figure 3-4 Architectural Elevations
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 16
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 3-5 Concept Landscape Plan
Preliminary Tree Legend
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description City of San Dimas page 17
Cherokee Court Residential Project

3.3 Proposed Improvements
Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, the following improvements apply to Project Area A only.

Street
Curb and gutter will be installed along the equestrian trail on East Baseline Road. The west side of Cherokee Court will be improved with a curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

Water and Sewer Improvement
Project Area A will connect to the existing water and sewer lines adjacent to the Project.

Storm Drainage Improvements
The topography of Project Area A is fairly flat, sloping to the west. The west side of Project Area A will need to be raised and will require a retaining wall so the lots will drain towards Cherokee Court.

There is no available storm drainpipe to use for the runoff; for that reason, a 36-inch perforated corrugated metal pipe Contech system will be placed on each lot to collect the difference between pre-development volume and post-development volume. Ultimately, the surface water will discharge into Cherokee Court.

Construction and Operational Characteristics
Construction
It is anticipated that construction in Project Area A will begin in the first quarter of 2024 with home deliveries in the first quarter of 2025. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Operations
Typical operations in Project Area A will include vehicle trips from residents, visitors, and service and delivery vehicles and the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and maintenance equipment associated with residential neighborhoods. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500, because these impacts are included in the baseline conditions.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 Environmental Analysis City of San Dimas page 18
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.0 Environmental Analysis
The Project is evaluated based on its potential effect on 21 environmental topics. Each topic is analyzed by responding to a series of questions about the impact of the Project on the particular topic. Based on the results of the Impact Analysis, the effects of the Project are then placed in one of the following four categories, which are each followed by a summary to substantiate the factual reasons why the impact was placed in a certain category.

Potentially Significant or
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
Significant or potentially
significant impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated that
cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. An Environmental
Impact Report must therefore be
prepared.

Potentially significant impact(s)
have been identified or
anticipated, but mitigation is
possible to reduce the
impact(s) to a less-thansignificant category. Mitigation measures must then be
identified.

No “significant”
impact(s) identified or
anticipated. Therefore,
no mitigation is
necessary.

No impact(s)
identified or
anticipated.

Therefore, no
mitigation is
necessary.

Approach to the Analysis
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the City required this Initial Study to include properties that are not within the boundaries of Proposed VTM No. 83304 (Project Area A) to:

1. Create a contiguous and cohesive surrounding area encompassed by VTM No. 83304 with the Single-Family Low General Plan land use designation and the SF-7500 Zoning classification;

2. Bring the lots on the west side of North Walnut Avenue into compliance with both the Zoning and the General Plan, as those properties are currently non-conforming due to their existing density and lot size; and

3. To remedy a land use inconsistency for 1136 Cherokee Court, which, although developed with a single-family residence, still has a General Plan designation of Commercial.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 19
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold 4.1 (a).

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ✓ Impact Analysis
General Plan Policy 5.1.2 states: “Protect views and viewsheds of the foothills” and the General Plan Open Space Element identifies the following scenic resources as having value to the community because they are visible from most areas of the City.1
• The open foothills and canyons and views to the San Gabriel Mountains • The northern foothills
• Way Hill
• San Dimas Canyon
• Sycamore Canyon
• Walnut Creek
• Cinnamon Creek and other associated canyons
Under CEQA, impacts on scenic vistas are analyzed from points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of a scenic vista. Structures within a viewer’s line of sight of a scenic vista may interfere with a public view of a scenic vista, either by physically blocking or screening the scenic vista from view or by impeding or blocking access to a formerly available viewing position. Those viewers may see the scenic areas before development; but would have those views blocked post-development.

The existing public vantage points within Project Area A to scenic vistas are from the public rightsof way of Cherokee Court and East Baseline Road. From these roadways, there are no views of Way Hill, San Dimas Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, Walnut Creek, Cinnamon Creek, and other associated canyons because of intervening development and topography. There are limited views of the northern foothills located approximately 0.75 miles from the Project Site and the San Gabriel Mountains beyond.

The proposed residential structures are two stories and do not exceed 30 feet in height. As required by Municipal Code §18.24.040 Property development standards, the maximum ground coverage of all structures would not exceed 35% of the total area of a lot or parcel. As such, the Project would provide view corridors to the foothills and San Gabriel Mountains visible on the horizon. Based on the preceding analysis, public views of a scenic vista would not be significantly or permanently blocked by the proposed residential structures associated with the development of Project Area A with mandatory compliance with the Municipal Code. Additionally, because no development is 1 San Dimas General Plan Open Space Element, p. V-18.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 20
Cherokee Court Residential Project
proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.1 (b).

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
✓
Impact Analysis
Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway right-ofway and comprise primarily scenic and natural features. 2 According to the California Department of
Transportation, Project Area A is not located along a state scenic highway corridor.3 As such, there is no impact on a state scenic highway.

According to the General Plan Open Space Element, the following roadways are identified as Local Scenic Corridors.
4 • Foothill Boulevard
• Walnut Avenue
• San Dimas Canyon Road
• San Dimas Avenue
• Via Verde Drive
• Puente Street
• Foothill Freeway (210)
• Highway 30
• San Bernardino Freeway (10)
Project Area A is not located adjacent to any of these scenic corridors. As such, there is no impact on a Local Scenic Corridor associated with the development of Project Area A. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.
2 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Guidelines, p. 1, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines-04-12-2012.pdf,accessed February 15, 2023. 3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Program, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed February 15, 2023. 4 San Dimas General Plan Open Space Element, p. V-20-21.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 21
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.1 (c).

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) If the project is in an Urbanized Area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
✓
Impact Analysis
According to CEQA Guidelines §15387, “Urbanized area” means a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. A Lead Agency shall determine whether a particular area meets the criteria in this section either by examining the area or by referring to a map prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census which designates the area as urbanized.

According to Census 2020, Project Area A is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Urbanized Area.
5 As such, the new homes proposed by the Project are subject to the City’s applicable regulations governing scenic quality. According to the General Plan Housing Element, Program 8, Residential Design Guidelines, “Ensuring well-designed residential projects is essential to creating a desirable living environment and preserving and enhancing the character of neighboring areas. City staff utilize the standards and guidelines in Chapter 18.12 of the Municipal Code to review projects.”
6 As shown in Table 4.1-1, the proposed seven new homes in Project Area A are consistent with Chapter 18.12. Future development would be reviewed for consistency with these regulations at the time development is proposed. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Table 4.1-1 Consistency With Applicable Regulations Governing Scenic Quality

18.12.060 Findings—Standard of review.

A. Consideration and Review of Development Plan. In reviewing any development plan presented pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the planning manager, director of development services, or the DPRB, as the case may be, shall consider the following:

1. New development or alteration or enlargement of existing development should be compatible with the character and quality of surrounding development and shall enhance the appearance of the area in which development is located.

Consistent. Project Area A is adjacent to a singlefamily development. Both the existing and proposed developments are single-family homes,
and the proposed development is compatible with
the adjacent residential structures.
5 United States Census Bureau, 2020 Census Urban Areas Wall Map. https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-maps/2020/geo/2020-census-urban-areas.html, accessed February 15, 2023.
6 Initial Study for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update City of San Dimas, March 2020. https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/San%20Dimas%20Hou sing%20Element%20Update_InitialStudy_Final%20Signed.pdf.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 22
Cherokee Court Residential Project

18.12.060 Findings—Standard of review.

A. Consideration and Review of Development Plan. In reviewing any development plan presented pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the planning manager, director of development services, or the DPRB, as the case may be, shall consider the following:

2. The location, configuration, size, and design of the buildings and structures should be visually harmonious with their sites and with the surrounding sites, buildings, and structures.

Consistent. The proposed homes will be similar to
the building setback and height requirements of
the homes within and adjacent to Project Area A.

As shown, the proposed homes are two (2) floor
plans. Each plan is two stories as follows: Plan 1
standard – 3,124 SF; Optional Plan 1 – 3,290 SF.

Plan 2 standard – 3,321 SF; Optional Plan 2 –
4,185 SF. The architectural design is compatible
with the existing homes adjacent to the site.

3. Architectural treatment of buildings and structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the natural environment, existing buildings and structures, and surrounding development, and shall enhance the
appearance of the area.

Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Architectural
Elevations, the architectural treatment meets this
criterion.

4. Architecture, landscaping, and signage shall be innovative in design and shall be considered in the total graphic design to be harmonious and attractive. The review shall include
materials, textures, colors, illumination, and landscaping; the design, location, and size of signs attached to buildings; and the design, location, and size of any freestanding sign.

Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Architectural
Elevations, the architectural treatment meets this
criterion. As shown in Figure 3-5, Concept
Landscape Plan, the landscaping design meets this
criterion. There are no signs proposed.

5. The location and configuration of buildings should minimize interference with the privacy and views of occupants of surrounding buildings.

Consistent. All structures meet the height and
setback requirements of the SF zone. As shown in
Figure 3-3, the proposed structures are separated
from the homes to the east by Cherokee Court.

The homes proposed on Lots 2-6 are adjacent to
an RV storage lot to the west, and the proposed
home on Lot 1, adjacent to the existing singlefamily home to the west meets the height and setback requirements to ensure that the privacy
and views are not interfered with.

6. The height and bulk of proposed buildings and structures on the site should be in scale with the height and bulk of buildings and structures on surrounding sites and should not visually dominate their sites or call undue attention to themselves.

Consistent. All structures meet the height and
setback requirements of the SF zone. Building
heights are limited to 35 feet, two stories, and are
the same as the surrounding homes.

7. Garish, inharmonious, or out-of-character colors should not be used on any building, face, or roof visible from the street or from an adjoining site. Exposed metal flashing or trim should be anodized or painted to blend with the exterior colors of the building.

Consistent. The proposed homes are similar to
the adjacent homes and consist of stucco, tile
roofs, and trim features in earth tone.

8. All mechanical equipment on the site shall be appropriately screened from view. Large vent stacks and similar features should be avoided, and if essential shall be screened from view or painted so as to be nonreflective and compatible with building colors.

Consistent. All HVAC equipment is at ground level
and located within the rear yards.

9. Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other architectural features that provide shelter and shade should be
encouraged.

Consistent. The homes include covered porches.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 23
Cherokee Court Residential Project

18.12.060 Findings—Standard of review.

A. Consideration and Review of Development Plan. In reviewing any development plan presented pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the planning manager, director of development services, or the DPRB, as the case may be, shall consider the following:

10. Rooflines on a building or structure should be compatible throughout the building or structure and with existing
buildings and structures and surrounding development.

Consistent. Rooflines are typical of single-family
residential structures and similar to adjacent
residential developments.

11. Proposed lighting should be so located so as to avoid glare and to reflect the light away from adjoining property and rights-of-way.

Consistent. Lighting is limited to security lighting
on the front and rear entrances to each home and
directed downward.

12. The design of accessory structures, fences and walls should be harmonious with the principal building and other
buildings on the site. Insofar as possible, the same building materials should be used on all structures on a site.

Consistent. Garages are attached to the main
structure and are an integral part of the design.

There is a 6-foot-high decorative concrete block
wall proposed along the southern and western
property line that is consistent with the materials
and colors of the proposed homes.

13. Design and location of proposed signs should be consistent with the provisions of this title and with characteristics of the area in which the site is located. Signs should be
restrained, and design should be in keeping with the use to which they are related. Sign material should be compatible with the materials and colors used on the exterior of the structure to which the sign is related and should be
complementary to the appearance of the building.

N/A (no signs are proposed)

14. The design of the buildings, driveways, loading facilities, parking areas, signs, landscaping, lighting, solar facilities, and other sight features should show proper consideration for both the functional aspects of the site, such as the automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation, and the visual effect of the development upon other properties from the view of the public street.

Consistent. See Responses 1 and 2 above.

15. Off-street parking and loading facilities should function efficiently with minimum obstruction of traffic on
surrounding streets.

Consistent. Off-street parking is provided within
the garage and driveway of each lot.

16. All utility facilities shall be underground. Consistent. All connections to existing facilities will be underground.

17. Adequate provisions should be made for fire safety. N/A (not related to scenic quality)

18. Drainage should be provided so as to avoid flow onto adjacent properties.

N/A (not related to scenic quality)

19. All buildings and structures shall be designed and oriented to promote passive thermal systems to the greatest extent possible, in accordance with Chapter 18.168. Alternative energy systems shall be provided when required by
Chapter 18.168 and such systems shall meet all
requirements of this chapter.

N/A (not related to scenic quality)

20. All development standards for respective zoning shall be met.

Consistent. As demonstrated in Table 4.1-1, the
Project meets all applicable scenic quality
regulations mandated by Section 18.12 of the
Zoning Code.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.1 Aesthetics City of San Dimas page 24
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.1 (d).

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
✓
Impact Analysis
Outdoor Lighting and Glare
The new homes proposed for Project Area A would increase the amount of light in the area above what is being generated by adding new sources of illumination including security and decorative lighting for the proposed homes. As required by San Dimas Municipal Code Section 18.24.050 Property development standards involving side yard easements, all lighting shall be located in a manner such that it will not reflect upon adjoining areas. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Building Material Glare
As shown in Figure 3-4, Architectural Elevations, the primary exterior of the future structures in Project Area A will be typical of residential structures and will consist of nonreflective materials including stucco exterior and tile roofing materials. Therefore, the potential glare from the proposed structures associated with the development of Project Area A is less than significant. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of San Dimas page 25
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Threshold 4.2 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.7In addition, no properties abutting Project Area A are classified as Farmland. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.2 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
✓
Impact Analysis
Agricultural Zoning
The current zoning classification for the site is Single Family-Agriculture (SF-A-16000). The Project proposes a Zone Change from SF-A-16000 to SF-7500. According to Municipal Code §18.28.010, the SF-A zone is intended to provide for the development of single-family residential homes at urban standards, with no more than one dwelling unit permitted on any lot or parcel and permitting certain domestic animals. According to Municipal Code §18.28.020.B, Uses permitted, the SF-A zone allows wholesale nurseries, orchards, and the raising of field crops. According to Municipal Code §18.24.020.B, Uses permitted, the SF Zone does not allow agricultural uses. Considering the above factors, the proposed development of Project Area A would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. 7 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, https://databasin.org/datasets/b83ea1952fea44ac9fc62c60dd57fe48 , accessed February 14, 2023.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of San Dimas page 26
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Williamson Act
A Williamson Act Contract enables private landowners to voluntarily enter into contracts with local governments for the purpose of establishing agricultural preserves. According to the California Department of Conservation Williamson Act Contracts website, an agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into Williamson Act contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board or city council having jurisdiction. Agricultural preserves must generally be at least 100 acres in size. 8 The entire Project
Area is 6.80 acres in size and is mostly developed. As such, it is not conducive to agricultural use.

Additionally, a review of the County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor website does not identify any properties within Project Area A as being under a Williamson Act contract.9 Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.2 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
✓
Impact Analysis
California Public Resources Code §12220(g) defines forest land as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.

Section 4526 of the Public Resources Code defines timberland as land, other than land owned by the federal government or land designated by the state as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.

Project Area A does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production, nor are any forest lands or timberlands located on or near the Project site. Because no land within Project Area A is currently zoned or proposed for forestland or timberland, there is no potential to impact such zoning. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of 8 California Department of Conservation, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/contracts.aspx, accessed February 10, 2023.
9 County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor, https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/. accessed February 10, 2023.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of San Dimas page 27
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.2 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
✓
Impact Analysis
As noted in the response to Threshold 4.2(c) above, the entire Project Site and surrounding properties do not contain forest lands, are not zoned for forest lands, nor are they identified as containing forest resources by the General Plan. Because forest land is not present within Project Area A or in the immediate vicinity of the site, the Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.2 (e).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is vacant, undeveloped land and is not being used for agricultural or forest land use.

There is no land being used primarily for agricultural purposes in the vicinity of Project Area A.

Therefore, the proposed development of Project Area A would not convert existing farmland to nonagricultural uses or forest land to non-forest use. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 28
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.3 Air Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical document:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study, Entech Consulting Group, September 2023. (Appendix A of this Initial Study).

Background
Air Pollutants
Air Pollutants are the amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in adverse effects to humans, animals, vegetation, and/or materials. The Air Pollutants regulated by the SCAQMD are described below.10 Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Over 80% of the CO emitted in urban areas is contributed by motor vehicles.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts quickly to form NO2, creating a mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx.

Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10): One type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. Fine particles – less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair – pose a serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into the lungs. PM can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides.

Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). A strong-smelling, colorless gas that is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. Power plants, which may use coal or oil high in sulfur content, can be major sources of SO2.

Ozone: Ozone is formed when several gaseous pollutants react in the presence of sunlight.

Most of these gases are emitted from vehicle tailpipe emissions.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.

Federal and State Air Quality Standards
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes healthbased air quality standards for the above-described air pollutants that all states must achieve. The California Clean Air Act also establishes requirements for cities and counties to meet. 10 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 29
Cherokee Court Residential Project
South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) was created by the state legislature to facilitate compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and to implement the state air quality program.

Toward that end, South Coast AQMD develops regulations designed to achieve these public health standards by reducing emissions from business and industry. San Dimas is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Table 4.3-1 describes the regional significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD to meet national and state air quality standards.

Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Emissions (Construction)
(pounds/day)
Emissions (Operational)
(pounds/day)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.

Attainment Designation
An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that criteria pollutant concentrations did not exceed the established standard. In contrast to attainment, a “nonattainment” designation indicates that a criteria pollutant concentration has exceeded the established standard. Table 4.3-2 shows the attainment status of criteria pollutants in the Basin.

Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone – 1-hour standard Nonattainment No Standard
Ozone – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (N0x) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified /Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The following lists the SCAQMD rules applicable to all mixed-use projects in the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin).

1. Rule 402 – Nuisance – Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 30
Cherokee Court Residential Project
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

2. Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust – Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities. It requires that no person shall cause or allow fugitive dust emissions such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line or the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity if the dust is from the operation of a motorized vehicle.

Compliance with this rule is achieved by applying standard Best Available Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below. Compliance with these rules would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

1.5.1 Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving the project site.

1.5.2 Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and remove all track out at the end of each workday.

1.5.3 Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and prewater all areas prior to clearing and soil moving activities.

1.5.4 Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer.

1.5.5 Pre-water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

1.5.6 Replant all disturbed areas as soon as practical.

1.5.7 Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.

1.5.8 Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

3. Rules 1108 and 1108.1 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt – Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limit asphalt's VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction and any ongoing maintenance during operations. Therefore, all asphalt used during the construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1.

4. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings – Rule 1113 governs architectural coatings' sale, use, and manufacturing and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints, and solvents.

This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during the construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 31
Cherokee Court Residential Project

5. Rule 1143 – Paint Thinners – Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents that are used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction, and solvents used during the construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143.

State of California Rules
The following lists the State of California rules that apply to all residential projects.

1. CARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles – On July 26, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and NOx emissions from in use off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirement, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014, for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).

Currently, no commercial operation in California may add any equipment to their fleet with a Tier 0 or Tier 1 engine. By January 1, 2018, medium and large fleets will be restricted from adding Tier 2 engines to their fleets. By January 2023, no commercial operation will be allowed to add Tier 2 engines to their fleets. It should be noted that commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0 and 1 equipment if they can demonstrate that the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOx emissions targets.

2. CARB Resolution 08-43 for On-Road Diesel Truck Fleets – On December 12, 2008, the CARB adopted Resolution 08-43, limiting NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from on-road diesel truck fleets operating in California. On October 12, 2009, Executive Order R-09- 010 was adopted that codified Resolution 08-43 into Section 2025, title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation requires that by 2023 all commercial diesel trucks that operate in California shall meet the model year 2010 (Tier 4 Final) or later emission standards. This regulation provides annual interim targets for fleet owners to meet in the interim period. By January 1, 2014, 50 percent of a truck fleet is required to have installed Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for NOx emissions, and 100 percent of a truck fleet installed BACT for PM10 emissions. This regulation also provides a few exemptions, including a one-time 3-day pass for trucks registered outside of California. All on-road diesel trucks utilized during the project's construction will be required to comply with Resolution 08-43. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 32
Cherokee Court Residential Project

3. CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings – (Title 24) standards require the installation of insulated hot water pipes, improved window performance, improved wall insulation, and mandatory duct sealing. Other Title 24 requirements include the use of cool roofing shingles, a minimum of 1-inch air space between roof material and roof deck, and a minimum of R22 roof/ceiling insulation. All lighting is required to be high efficiency, and daylight and motion sensors are required for outdoor lighting, bathrooms, utility rooms, and other spaces. The forced air systems are required to limit leakage to 5 percent or less and require all heat pump systems to be equipped with liquid line filter driers. Part 6 standards are anticipated to reduce electricity consumption by 281 gigawatt hours per year and natural gas consumption by 16 million therms per year. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiencystandards

4. CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards – (Title 24) requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. One focus of CCR Title 24, Part 11 is water conservation measures, which reduce GHG emissions by reducing electrical consumption associated with pumping and treating water. CCR Title 24, Part 11 has approximately 52 nonresidential mandatory measures and 130 provisions for optional use.

Threshold 4.3 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
✓
Impact Analysis
The Project Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required to produce air quality management plans directing how the Basin’s air quality will be brought into attainment with the national and state ambient air quality standards. The most recent air quality management plan is the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan11 and it applies to the City of San Dimas. The purpose of the plan is to achieve and maintain both the national and state ambient air quality standards described above.
11 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 33
Cherokee Court Residential Project
To determine if a project is consistent with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, the SCAQMD has established consistency criteria that are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and are discussed below.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that “New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required, and a project should be considered consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As evaluated under Thresholds 4.3(b), (c), and (d) below, the development of Project Area A would not exceed regional or localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction or long‐term operation. Accordingly, the proposed development of Project Area A is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the growth assumptions in the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan.

The SCAQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in December 2022. Future growth projections were based on demographic growth forecasts for various socio-economic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by SCAG for its 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2022 RTP/SCS used, in part, the 2015 existing land use and general plans from local jurisdictions, which were then used by SCAQMD to forecast air emissions in the 2022 AQMP.

This second AQMP consistency criterion requires that the proposed Project does not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. In 2015, the Project Site was designated as Single Family Very Low in the General Plan, which allows a density of up to 3 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Single Family Very Low to Single Family Low, which allows a density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre. Under the existing designation, the maximum yield would be 4 dwelling units. The proposed yield would be 7 dwelling units per VTM No. 83304. In terms of regional population forecasting used by the SCAQMD, an increase of 3 units is de minimis concerning air quality emissions. As such, the proposed development of Project Area A is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 34
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.3 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
✓
Impact Analysis
Regional Air Quality Impacts
The proposed development of Project Area A has the potential to generate pollutant concentrations during construction activities and long‐term operation. Construction and operational emissions for the Project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2022.1), which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable, such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and is authorized for use by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the proposed development of Project Area A will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:

1. Grading

2. Building Construction

3. Paving

4. Architectural Coating
The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related regional emissions from the proposed development of Project Area A. The worst-case summer or winter daily constructionrelated criteria pollutant emissions from the Project for each phase of construction activities are shown below in Table 4.3-3. Because building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently, Table 4.3-3 also shows the combined criteria pollutant emissions from building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 35
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Table 4.3-3 Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Construction Season
Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC/ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer 0.27 2.17 15.0 0.02 0.18 0.08
Winter 29.3 2.18 18.7 0.03 3.01 1.44
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A) As shown in Table 4.3-3, emissions resulting from the development of Project Area A construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Long-Term Regional Operation-Related Impacts
Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile, truck, and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from Project Area A. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emissions sources that include the use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, the use of consumer products such as cleaning products, periodic repainting of the proposed homes, and the use of electricity and natural gas by the homes. The results of the CalEEMod model for operation of the proposed development on Project Area A are summarized in Table 4.3-4.

Table 4.3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Operational Season
Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2.02 0.90 8.90 0.02 1.6 0.43
Winter 1.89 0.95 6.91 0.02 1.6 0.43
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A) As shown in Table 4.3-4 Project-related air emissions do not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.

Therefore, long-term operational emissions associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 36
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.3 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
✓
Impact Analysis
Localized Air Quality Impacts
The SCAQMD has established Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) which are used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts from construction.

For a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours. If the calculated emissions for the proposed construction are below the LST emissionsthresholds, then the proposed construction activity is not significant for air quality. For purposes of this analysis, the Project Area is located in Air Monitoring Area 10, which covers San Dimas. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Area consist of single-family homes within 60 feet (18.3 meters) from the VTM No. 83304 portion (Project Area A) of the Project Area. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter threshold. Table

4.3-5 identifies the maximum daily localized emissions thresholds that apply to the Project.

Table 4.3-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction
NOx 103
CO 612
PM10 4
PM2.5 3
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.

Localized Construction Emissions
Table 4.3-6 summarizes the localized construction emissions considering the application of applicable SCAQMD Rules. As shown in Table 4.3-6, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for construction activities.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 37
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Table 4.3-6 Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Construction Phase
Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Grading 2.04 17.8 2.8 1.4
Building Construction 2.03 14.3 0.04 0.04
Paving 1.51 8.87 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating 0.65 0.96 <0.005 <0.005
Pollutants Total 6.2 41.9 2.86 1.5
Mass LST Threshold 103 612 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).

As shown in Table 4.3-5 and Table 4.3-6 above, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Localized Onsite Operational Emissions
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed Project Area A does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions or onsite mobile equipment, no long-term LST analysis is needed. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

CO Hot Spot Analysis
CO Hot Spots are typically associated with idling vehicles at extremely busy intersections (i.e., intersections with an excess of 100,000 vehicle trips per day). There are no intersections in the vicinity of the Project Site that exceed the 100,000 vehicle per day threshold typically associated with CO Hot Spots. In addition, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated as an attainment area for CO since 2007. Therefore, vehicular emissions associated with the development of Project Area A would not create a Hot Spot and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO Hot Spot. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas. According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80% of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Because there are no large diesel truck trips generated by the proposed development of Project Area A, a less than significant TAC impact associated with Project Area A Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.3 Air Quality City of San Dimas page 38
Cherokee Court Residential Project
would occur, and no mitigation would be required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.3 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
✓
Impact Analysis
According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not propose any of the above-described uses.

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed development of Project Area A may result from construction equipment exhaust, the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities, and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Proposed Project’s long-term operational uses.

The construction odor emissions from the development of Project Area A would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction, and the impact is thus considered less than significant. Furthermore, it is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with construction and operations associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 Biological Resources City of San Dimas page 39
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.4 Biological Resources
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:

Habitat Assessment, L&L Environmental, March 2023. (Appendix B of this Initial Study).

Threshold 4.4 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
✓
Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
The Project proposes to develop seven single-family residences via VTM No. 83304 on Project Area A, which has an occupied residence with a detached garage and a storage shed in the southern portion of the site. Another storage shed is present on the west-central portion of the site. The southern portion of the property and the eastern fence line include landscaping consisting of nonnative shrubs and trees. The northern portion of the property consists of a former plant nursery with ruderal and ornamental vegetation. The remnants of an internal gravel road are visible in aerial images. There is no native habitat. The site is regularly mowed for weed abatement and the entire property perimeter is fenced.

Literature Review Results
A review of historical aerial images shows that Project Area A has been disturbed since at least 1948, and the northern portion of the site was in use as a plant nursery from approximately 1964 to 2009.

The existing residence was constructed in 1946. The residence is currently occupied and wellmaintained. The results from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) searches were reviewed for the potential of plant and wildlife species to occur on the Project Area as described below.

Vegetation Communities
Project Area A is entirely developed/disturbed. Vegetation onsite is primarily ornamental and ruderal and is regularly mowed for weed abatement. There is no native habitat and there are no sensitive vegetation communities present. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 Biological Resources City of San Dimas page 40
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Plant Species
A total of 25 plant species were identified on Project Area A; of these, 23 (92%) are non-native.

These species consist of ruderal plants and ornamental shrubs and trees. Six small- to moderatesized coast live oaks are present along the eastern fence line. Coast live oak is a native oak species, but the trees appear to have been planted in landscaping. No listed or special status plant species were observed during the survey. Due to historic and ongoing disturbance and a lack of native vegetation communities, there is no suitable habitat for listed or special status plant species on the site and none are expected to occur. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Wildlife Species
A total of 16 wildlife species (mostly birds) were detected on or adjacent to Project Area A during the survey. All are common species. No federal or state-listed endangered or threatened species or special status species were observed. The site is not within designated critical habitat for any federally listed species. No listed or special-status wildlife species were observed during the survey.

Due to historic and ongoing disturbance, lack of native vegetation, and urban setting, there is no suitable habitat for listed or special status wildlife species on Project Area A, except for nesting birds and special status bats, described below. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Nesting Birds
Habitat for nesting birds is present on and adjacent to Project Area A, including vegetation, open ground, stored vehicles, and structures. A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was observed perched on a transmission line tower about 150 feet to the northeast of Project Area A. However, no raptor nests were observed in the tower or anywhere on or adjacent to Project Area A. No active or inactive songbird nests were observed on or adjacent to Project Area A during the survey.

However, there is a suitable habitat for nesting birds on and adjacent to Project Area A. Nesting birds are protected under state and federal laws. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is required:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Nesting Bird Survey. Project activities, including initial vegetation trimming/clearing, tree trimming/removal, ground disturbance, and demolition, shall be avoided during the nesting season (January 1 to September 15). If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a nesting bird clearance survey is required within three (3) days prior to the start of Project activities during the nesting season. If active nests are present, avoidance of nest sites is required and a buffer of 300 to 500 feet (or as determined by a biologist) is recommended until a biologist has verified that juvenile birds are no longer dependent on the nest, or the nest has otherwise become inactive. An active nest is defined as a nest with eggs, chicks, or dependent juveniles, or a nest utilized for reproduction.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 Biological Resources City of San Dimas page 41
Cherokee Court Residential Project
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts associated with development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Special Status Bats
The trees and structures on Project Area A provide potentially suitable roosting habitat for specialstatus bats. No evidence of bat roosting was observed during the survey. However, the survey did not include an examination of the interior of structures. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Pre-Construction Bat Survey. To the extent feasible, demolition or disturbance to suitable bat roosting habitat shall be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season. If trees must be removed during the maternity season (March 1 to September 30), or if structures must be removed at any time of the year, a preconstruction survey by a qualified bat specialist is required within seven (7) days prior to disturbance.

Maternity season lasts from March 1 to September 30 and trees or structures determined to be maternity roosts shall be left in place until the end of the maternity season. Hibernating colonies shall be left in place until a qualified biologist determines that the bats are no longer hibernating.

Bats shall be allowed to escape prior to demolition of structures. This may be accomplished by placing one-way exclusionary devices into areas where bats are entering a structure that allows bats to exit but not re-enter.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts associated with development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.4 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
✓
Impact Analysis
There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community present on Project Area A. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 Biological Resources City of San Dimas page 42
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.4 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) 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?
✓
Impact Analysis
There are no state or federally protected wetlands present on Project Area A. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.4 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
✓
Impact Analysis
The area immediately surrounding Project Area A consists of residential and commercial developments. The property encompassed by VTM No. 83304 is disturbed/developed with mainly ornamental and ruderal vegetation. There is no native habitat present to support wildlife corridors or nursery sites. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.4 (e).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
✓
Impact Analysis
Section 18.162.010 of the City of San Dimas Municipal Code requires a permit before any major topping, cutting, or removal of a mature significant tree. A mature significant tree is defined as any Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.4 Biological Resources City of San Dimas page 43
Cherokee Court Residential Project
oak tree measuring 8 inches or more in trunk diameter, any other species of tree that measures 10 inches or more in diameter, and any multi-trunk tree having a total circumference of 38 inches or more, with at least one trunk having a minimum diameter of 4 inches. The diameter must be measured at a point 36 inches above the ground at the base of the tree.

Proposed VTM No. 83304 would remove 11 mature significant trees from Project Area A, including 5 oaks. As required by §18.162.060 of the Municipal Code, a permit to remove or relocate mature significant trees is subject to conditions of approval, including, but not limited to tree relocation and/or replacement within the subject property. Mandatory compliance with the Municipal Code will ensure impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.4 (f).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
✓
Impact Analysis
Habitat Conservation Plans offer long-term assurances for the conservation of covered species in exchange for biologically appropriate levels of incidental take and/or habitat loss as defined in the approved plan. California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act (FGC §2800 et seq.) governs such plans at the state level and was designed to conserve species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes across a jurisdiction or a collection of jurisdictions. Complementary federal Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are governed by the Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. §136, 16 U.S.C. §1531, et seq.) (ESA). According to the California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are no such plans that encompass Project Area A.12 Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.
12 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 44
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.5 Cultural Resources
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report.

Historic Resource Evaluation, L&L Environmental, May 9, 2022.

Threshold 4.5 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
✓
Impact Analysis
An occupied residence with a detached garage and a storage shed is present in the southern portion of Project Area A. Another storage shed is present on the west-central portion of the site. The southern portion of the property and the eastern fence line include landscaping consisting of nonnative shrubs and trees. The northern portion of the property consists of a former plant nursery.

The remnants of an internal gravel road are visible in aerial images. The site is regularly mowed for weed abatement and ground visibility was good during the survey.

Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damaging or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts on historic resources can occur through direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource.

CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) clarifies that historical resources include the following:

1. A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements [of] section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

Archival Research
L&L Senior Architectural Historian Jennifer Gorman, M.H.P., completed site-specific research and research on the general history and development of San Dimas. Repositories included the Los Angeles County Assessor for building records; the San Dimas Building Development Department for Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 45
Cherokee Court Residential Project
building records; the Los Angeles Public Library online catalog for Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; and a general history of San Dimas.

Ms. Gorman also contacted the City of San Dimas and checked the City’s website to identify any local historical register or historic preservation ordinance. The City of San Dimas does not have a historic preservation ordinance, but historic preservation is mentioned within the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan (GP). The local historic register is a list of approximately 300 buildings that were surveyed throughout the City in 1991. These buildings were given “codes” to identify their level of significance, but no specific historic designation criteria have been developed by the City.

Building permits and records held by the City for properties that were constructed before its incorporation are subject to partial or wholesale missing information, as many building records that were on file with Los Angeles County were transferred to the City after 1960. The original building permit for 327 East Baseline Road was not found but permits and records as early as 1961 were found at the City. Historic aerials showed the gradual development of the Project area from citrus groves located to the south of the property to its current residential neighborhood. No Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were found that included the subject property. Ancestry.com provided U.S. Census Bureau records, city directories, voter index records, and marriage and death records for the owners of the property. A chain of title searches was also provided by First American Title.

A records search for Project Area A and a 0.50-mile buffer was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) in Fullerton to determine whether the building had been recorded previously and to identify any buildings, structures, or objects that had been recorded within 0.50 mile of Project Area A (Appendix C). A total of seven historic resources were identified within the search radius (Table 4.5-1). None of the buildings were found within Project Area A.

Table 4.5-1 Historic Resources Found Within a .50 Mile Radius of the Subject Property P-Numbers Resource Location
180723 San Dimas Hotel
186097 Wildwood Ranch
187085 Mojave Road
187546 Highway Well Site
188983 LA Dept of Water and Power Boulder Lines North & South 192335 130 W. Allen
192336 Jacob L. Way House
Source: Historic Resource Evaluation, L&L Environmental, May 9, 2022 Field Survey
L&L Archaeologist Bill Gillean completed a historical resource field survey on March 12, 2022, to document the buildings at 327 East Baseline Road (within Project Area A). The property at 327 East Baseline Road is a single-family residential property located on the northwest corner of East Baseline Road and Cherokee Court. The residence was constructed in 1946 and has since been altered. The setting of Project Area A is urban, and the property is surrounded by residential buildings constructed between the 1940s and 1990s. Project Area A contains two buildings: a main house and a garage.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 46
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Main House
The main house is a single-story residential building with a concrete foundation, near rectangular plan, smooth stucco siding, and an irregular roof featuring a front gable section and hipped roof types. The roof has composition shingles. The primary entrance is on the west façade of the building.

A concrete walkway leads to three concrete steps with metal railings that lead to a flush wood door.

This entrance is on the southern end of the west façade. To the north of the front door are three slider windows; one is metal and the other two are vinyl, each with a single wood shutter. The south façade features a brick chimney and four vinyl slider windows. The east façade features four windows: two vinyl sliders, a tripartite wood window with wood muntin, and two tripartite vinyl windows. The south façade features a front gable projection with two triangular windows located underneath the gable peak. This façade also features a corner porch that is covered with a wood pergola. The porch has a wood deck and wood steps with a wood railing. Within the porch are two metal slider windows and a large vinyl sliding door.

Landscape features include an asphalt driveway, a chain link fence that has been grown over with vegetation, some trees, and small plantings around the house. Modifications to the building include stucco siding, and replacement windows and doors. According to aerial photographs, an addition was built sometime between 1972 and 1978 on the south façade. According to building permits, the fireplace was added in 1961, the kitchen was remodeled in 1999, and the sewer line was repaired, and the roof replaced in 2009.

Garage
The garage is a single-story ancillary building northwest of the main house. The building features a concrete slab foundation, smooth stucco siding, and a front gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. The roof features exposed rafter tails within the eaves. The primary entrance is on the south façade and features a metal roll-top garage door with partial glazing. The east façade features a single pedestrian door flanked by a sidelight. The rear (south) façade features a partial-width porch supported by wood posts and a hipped roof. Within the porch is storage equipment. There is a single pedestrian door on this façade. There are two windows located on the west façade; one is a metal slider covered by security bars, and the other is a fixed wood window. Modifications to the garage include stucco siding, and replacement windows and doors.

California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under CEQA. The criteria established for eligibility for the CRHR are directly comparable to the national criteria established for the NRHP.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 47
Cherokee Court Residential Project
To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a building must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:

Consistency Criterion No. 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

While Project Area A is broadly related to the historic theme of Community Planning and Development as a residential property in the City of San Dimas, this property does not have a significant association with that theme. Further, the property has undergone significant alterations including the replacement stucco siding, replacement windows, and doors on the main house and garage. According to historic aerials, the main house was added onto sometime between 1972 and 1978 on the south façade including the rear porch. According to building permits, the fireplace was added in 1961, the kitchen was remodeled in 1999, the sewer line was repaired, and the roof was replaced in 2009. The property has therefore lost integrity of materials, workmanship, design, and feeling. The property does not have a significant association. Therefore, the property has lost integrity. As such, it is not recommended eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

Consistency Criterion No. 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

No significant individuals were found associated with Project Area A. Therefore, the building at 327 East Baseline Road is not recommended as eligible under CRHR Criterion 2.

Consistency Criterion No. 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

Project Area A has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, and design – the three most important aspects of integrity that a resource must retain to be eligible under Consistency Criterion No. 3.

While no original building record has been found for the property, it is unlikely that it was constructed by a master. As such, the property is recommended as not eligible under CRHR Consistency Criterion No. 3.

Consistency Criterion No. 4: It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The property does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historical research. Therefore, 327 East Baseline Road is not recommended as individually eligible under CRHR Consistency Criterion No. 4.

Conclusion
As the property at 327 East Baseline Road is not recommended as eligible for the CRHR and is not considered a historic resource under CEQA, the development of Project Area A will have no adverse impact on historic resources. As such, no mitigation is required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 48
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.5 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is currently a compacted and landscaped area that has been used for grazing and agriculture in the past. The site has been occupied at least since 1946. Project Area A is currently surrounded by residential buildings. To the north of the property is commercial development. The east, south, and west of Project Area A are surrounded by residential development that has occurred in the last 30 years.

A records search for Project Area A and a 0.50-mile buffer was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) in Fullerton to determine whether the building had been recorded previously and to identify any buildings, structures, or objects that had been recorded within 0.50 mile of Project Area A (Appendix C). A total of seven historic resources were identified within the search radius (Table 4.5-1). None of the buildings were found within Project Area A. The Mojave Road was recorded as running parallel and south of E. Baseline Road, but all of that area has been developed.

L&L Archaeologist Bill Gillean completed a field survey on March 12, 2022, and documented one building of historic age on the parcel. During the survey, approximately 95% of the property was either obscured by ornamental plantings and container plants, grass, or the surface had been scarified by equipment. No native ground surfaces were noted during the survey that supports evidence of surface archaeological resources. However, due to the level of current and past disturbances on the site, the site is considered to be moderately sensitive and there is a potential to encounter cultural resources during construction-related earthmoving activities. To reduce the potential impact of inadvertent finding of cultural resources Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 require the Project Proponent to retain a qualified archaeologist to remain on call during the entirety of Project-related earth-moving operations for Project Area A. Such operations may include excavation and grading of the Project Site or the trenching for the installation of underground utilities and the removal of trees and vegetation.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of grading or excavation, workers conducting construction activities and their foremen will receive Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training from a qualified archaeologist regarding the potential for sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources to be unearthed during grading activities. The workers will be directed to report any specimens of bone, stone, ceramics, or other archaeological artifacts or features observed during grading and/or other construction activities to their foremen and to cease grading activities in the immediate vicinity of Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 49
Cherokee Court Residential Project
the discovery until a qualified archaeologist and Native American cultural monitor is notified of the discovery and can assess their significance. The WEAP shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel of the area’s environmental conditions and the environmental protection measures that must be adhered to by all workers throughout the duration of Project construction.

Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon completion of the WEAP, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended the program, understand all protection measures, and shall abide by all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with the construction foreman at the Project field construction office and shall be made available to any resource agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the Project later, the construction foreman shall ensure that new personnel receive training before they start working. The archaeologist shall provide hard copies of the WEAP presentation to the construction foreman.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 Archaeological Treatment Plan. If historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. A qualified archaeologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Additionally, any Native American Tribe who consulted on the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b) (AB52), shall be contacted regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the discovery. The Tribe may provide input with regards to significance and treatment. A Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The qualified archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Construction activities may continue on other parts of the site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique archaeological resources takes place.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.5 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other grounddisturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.5 Cultural Resources City of San Dimas page 50
Cherokee Court Residential Project
California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et seq. California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin. According to California Public Resources Code §5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code §5097.98.

Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, as well as Public Resources Code §5097, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 Energy City of San Dimas page 51
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.6 Energy
Threshold 4.6 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
✓
Impact Analysis
Construction Energy Analysis
Construction of the proposed development on Project Area A would require the use of fuel- and electric-powered equipment and vehicles for construction activities. The majority of activities would use fuel-powered equipment and vehicles that would consume gasoline or diesel fuel. Heavy construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, backhoes, dump trucks) would be diesel-powered, while smaller construction vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and personal vehicles used by workers, would be gasoline powered. The majority of electricity use would be for power tools. The consumption of energy would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand for available supplies. There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of fuel or electricity that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state.

Starting in 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the nation’s first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes.

These requirements ensure fleets gradually turn over the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards as fuel efficiencies gradually rise. It should also be noted that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of the proposed development on Project Area A would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.

In addition, as required by state law,
13 idling times of construction vehicles are limited to no more than 5 minutes, thereby minimizing, or eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.
13 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, §2449(d)(3) Idling.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 Energy City of San Dimas page 52
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Operation Energy Analysis
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project Area A operations would include transportation energy demands and operational energy demands.

Transportation Energy Demands
The energy that would be consumed by traffic generated by the proposed development on Project Area A is a function of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. Project Area A will result in 791,107 VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 32,962 gallons of gasoline.14 Enhanced fuel economies realized according to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The location of Project Area A proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption for the additional seven homes would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary, and impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF7500 do not increase the number of homes in Project Area B, and there are no impacts.

Operational Energy Demands
Occupancy of the single-family residences proposed on Project Area A would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Energy demands are estimated at 920,048 kBTU/year of natural gas and 165,483 kWh/year of electricity.14 Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCal Gas, and electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Project proposes single-family residential homes on Project Area A reflecting contemporary energyefficient/energy-conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose inherently energy-intensive uses, and the energy demands in total for the proposed development on Project Area A would be comparable to other single-family residential projects of similar scale and configuration. Lastly, the proposed development on Project Area A will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands will not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Additionally, the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500 do not increase the number of homes in Project Area B, and there are no impacts.
14 Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.6 Energy City of San Dimas page 53
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.6 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
✓
Impact Analysis
The regulations directly applicable to Project Area A are Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6, and CALGreen Title 24, Part 11, which the City has adopted. These regulations include, but are not limited to, the use of energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, water-conserving plumbing, and water-efficient irrigation systems. The proposed development on Project Area A is required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations as part of the building permit and inspection process. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 54
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.7 Geology and Soils
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.

Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Duco Engineering, July 19, 2021 (Technical Appendix D to this Initial Study)
Threshold 4.7 (a).

Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) 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? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. ✓
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, Project Area A is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 15 As such,
there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (a).

Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct proposed structures on Project Area A following the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, and the City Building Code. The CBSC and the City Building Code are designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismicground shaking. In addition, the Project would be conditioned to comply with the site-specific 15 California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed February 20, 2023.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 55
Cherokee Court Residential Project
ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project’s Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared for the Project (Appendix D of this Initial Study). With mandatory compliance with these standards and site-specific design and construction measures, potential adverse impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking would be less than significant for Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (a).

Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
✓
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, Project Area A is not within a Liquefaction Zone.16 Additionally, the Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Appendix D) stated that Project Area A is outside of any area of susceptibility to geologic hazards from seismic activity or otherwise, including slope instability, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or fault rupture. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (a).

Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
iv) Landslides? ✓
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application the Project site is not within a Landslide Zone.16 Additionally, the Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Appendix D) stated that Project Area A is outside of any area of susceptibility to geologic hazards from seismic activity or otherwise, including slope instability and landslide because the Project area is relatively flat and contains no slopes that could produce landslides. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.
16 California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed February 20, 2023.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 56
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.7 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
✓
Impact Analysis
Construction
Grading and construction activities would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. As required by Greater Los Angeles County Order No. R4-2012-0175-A01 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES Permit No. CAS004001, contractors are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) which include, but are not limited to, silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, and hydroseeding. Through compliance with the mandatory requirements, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil associated with development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Operation
The proposed development on Project Area A includes the installation of landscaping throughout the Project site, and areas of loose topsoil that could erode by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the development within Project Area A. In the proposed condition, the installation of stormwater retention/infiltration devices along the easterly street front to meet current Low Impact Development standards reduces the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil downstream. As such, the impacts associated with development of Project Area A are less than significant.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable because
of the Project, and potentially result in an on-site
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
✓
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Conservation, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, Project Area A is not mapped as an area of susceptibility to geologic hazards from seismic activity or otherwise, including slope instability, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or fault Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 57
Cherokee Court Residential Project
rupture. Additionally, the Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Appendix D) stated that Project Area A is outside of any area of susceptibility to geologic hazards from seismic activity or otherwise, including slope instability and landslide because the Project area is relatively flat and contains no slopes that could produce landslides. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

The dense, rocky nature of the subgrade in conjunction with the gentle gradients of Project Area A and great depth to groundwater preclude susceptibility to soil strength degradation caused by seismic excitement. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures per the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared for the Project (Appendix D of this Initial Study). As such, there would be no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property?
✓
Impact Analysis
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.

Expansion testing was performed on the encountered onsite soils. These soils are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Notwithstanding, construction of the proposed structures on Project Area A would be required to follow the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the Project (Appendix D of this Initial Study).

As such, impacts from Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 58
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.7 (e).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
✓
Impact Analysis
The development of Project Area A does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project would install domestic sewer infrastructure and connect to San Dimas’s existing sewer conveyance and treatment system. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.7 (f).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is underlain by Holocene sediments mapped as very young axial channel deposits composed of Quaternary alluvium (Qa). Qa deposits are late Holocene, less than five 1000 years in age. Axial channel deposits are associated with modern river channels. These sediments are sands intermixed with pebble conglomerates. The Holocene Qa formations have a low potential to bear fossils. As such, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Unique Geologic Feature
Soils encountered in subsurface explorations on Project Area A consisted of fills and disturbed native soils to a maximum depth of approximately 4 feet, constituted of loose to moderately firm silty sand with gravel, scattered organics, and debris. These features are common in the area and do not constitute a geologic feature that is unique or exclusive locally or regionally. Therefore, there is no impact associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.7 Geology and Soils City of San Dimas page 59
Cherokee Court Residential Project

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of San Dimas page 60
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study, Entech Consulting Group, Inc., September 2023 Threshold 4.8 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
✓
Impact Analysis
No single land-use project could generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the primary goal in adopting GHG significance thresholds, analytical methodologies, and mitigation measures is to ensure new land use development provides its fair share of the GHG reductions needed to address cumulative environmental impacts from those emissions.

A final numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin has not been established by the SCAQMD. The City has determined that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year is appropriate for residential land use development projects. The 3,000 MTCO2e threshold is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for nonindustrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. This threshold is also consistent with the SCAQMD’s draft interim threshold Tier 3.

A summary of the projected annual operational greenhouse gas emissions, including amortized construction‐related emissions associated with the development of Project Area A is provided in Table 4.8-1.

Table 4.8-1 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source CO2 CH4 N2O MTCO2e/Yr
Area Sources 0.41 <0.005 <0.005 0.41
Energy Usage 88.7 0.01 <0.005 89
Mobile Sources 279 0.01 0.01 283
Solid Waste 0.47 0.05 0 1.66
Water and Wastewater 7.92 0.03 <0.005 8.89
Construction Emissions (amortized over 30 years) 8.4 <0.005 <0.005 8.5 Total Emissions 384.9 0.1 0.03 391.5
SCAQMD Draft Threshold of Significance for Residential Land Uses 3,000 Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Study (Appendix A).

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of San Dimas page 61
Cherokee Court Residential Project
As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed development associated with Project Area A has the potential to generate approximately 391.5 MTCO2e per year. As such, the proposed development of Project Area A would not exceed the SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Thus, Projectrelated emissions associated with the development of Project Area A would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions that could impact climate change, and no mitigation or further analysis is required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there is no increase in GHG emissions caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.8 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
✓
Impact Analysis
Determining a project’s consistency with plans, policies, or regulations adopted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions plans presents unique challenges because the impact is global, and solutions require global, federal, state, and local action. The primary plan at the state level is the California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, November 2022, Appendix D Local Actions (AB32 Scoping Plan). Based on Appendix D of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, the following project attributes as shown in Table 4.8-2 below result in reduced GHG emissions from residential and mixed-use development and should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with California GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.
17 Table 4.8-2 Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs Priority Areas Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Project Implementation Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum,
meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

Yes. Each garage will have electrical
connections that support EVs.

VMT Reduction Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently
served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
Yes. The Project site is an infill site
surrounded by existing development and
served by all utilities and essential public
services.

Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands
Yes. The Project site supports a single-family
residence and garage and contains little or no
vegetation. There are no forests, woodlands,
shrublands, grasslands, wetlands, and other
natural lands on the Project site.
17 California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D. Local Actions, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf .

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of San Dimas page 62
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Priority Areas Priority GHG Reduction Strategies Project Implementation Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre)
or
Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or
Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS52
Yes. The Project site is approximately 0.25
miles from Foothill Transit Line #188 on
Foothill Boulevard as measured from the
corner of Baseline Road and Cherokee Court
to the bus stop at the corner of Foothill
Boulevard and N. Walnut Avenue.

Source: Table California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan November 2022, Table 3 – Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs.

Based on the analysis above, impacts associated with the proposed development on Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there is no increase in GHG emissions caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 63
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, PIC Environmental Services, January 19, 2022, and is included as Appendix E to this Initial Study
Threshold 4.9 (a-b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
✓
b) 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?
✓
Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Based on a review of regulatory records, County title records, historic telephone directories, historic topographic maps, and historic aerial photos, it appears the subject property was initially developed for residential purposes as early as 1946. Historic telephone directories document the occupation of the property by numerous residential listings since 1970 (see Appendix E). The telephone directory listings also include a commercial listing for a plant nursery in 2004 and 2009. PIC concludes the onsite businesses were operated by residential occupants at the time. Structural improvements include a single-family residence and a detached garage. City Permit Records and County title records indicate the residence was constructed in about 1961. Historic aerial photos indicate a residential building was present onsite in the 1940s.

Because these structures were constructed before 1980, asbestos-containing construction materials (ACM) may be present. An inspection and review of historic records found no evidence of underground storage tanks, clarifiers (i.e., settling tanks), surface staining, or other significant environmental impairments near these properties.

Construction Activities
Heavy equipment that would be used during the construction of the new homes would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on Project Area A during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 64
Cherokee Court Residential Project
health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonable consequence of the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site.

Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, including but not limited to requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

In addition, because the existing structures on Project Area A will be demolished, the presence of lead-based paint and asbestos could be released during demolition given its age. The Project Proponent is required to comply with mandatory state and local regulations regarding demolition, including but not limited to, the following.

1. Southcoast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures, and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.

2. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §1532.1. Lead. This section applies to demolition work and addresses hazards from lead by meeting regulatory requirements and following industry best practices.

As such, impacts due to construction activities on Project Area A would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A less than significant impact associated with the proposed development of Project Area A would occur through compliance with mandatory requirements. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Operational Activities
Project Area A would be developed with residential land uses, which is a land use not typically associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Although residential land uses may utilize household products that contain toxic substances, such as cleansers, paints, adhesives, and solvents, these products are usually in low concentration and small in amount and would not pose a significant risk to humans or the environment during transport to/from or use at the Project site. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 65
Cherokee Court Residential Project
significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

According to state law and local regulations, residents would be required to dispose of household hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, old paint) at a permitted household hazardous waste collection facility). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or the environment to significant hazards associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.9 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. From Project Area A, the nearest school is Chapparal High School located approximately 0.4 miles southwest. In addition, as discussed in the responses to Thresholds 4.9(a) and 4.9(b) above, all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations concerning hazardous materials. Therefore, regardless of the proximity of planned or proposed schools, the proposed development of Project Area A will have a less than significant impact on schools. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.9 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
✓
Impact Analysis
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by state and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. Based on a review of Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 66
Cherokee Court Residential Project
the Cortese List below maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency there are no open cases on the Project site or within 1 mile.18
• List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
• List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.
• List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit. • List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board.
• List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to §25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.

Based on the analysis above there are no impacts associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.9 (e).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) 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?
✓
Impact Analysis
The nearest airport is Brackett Field Airport located approximately 2 miles southeast of Project Area A. According to the Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Map 2A (see Figure 4- 1, Project Area A is located within Compatibility Zone E.

The proposed structures on Project Area A are less than 150 feet high, so the Risk Level is low. The Noise Impact is low because Project Area A is beyond the CNEL 55 dB contour. Therefore, the proposed development associated with Project Area A is compatible with the Plan and impacts are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. 18 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ , accessed April 5, 2022. Phase 1 ESA p. 6.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 67
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 4-1 Brackett Field Airport Compatibility Zones
Source: Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Table 2B, Compatibility Zone Delineation.

Zone E: (Other Airport Environs). Noise Impact: Low: Beyond CNEL 55 dB contour Occasional overflights intrusive to some outdoor activities; Risk Level: Low: Only 2% of near-airport accidents here. Object height limits 150 feet or more above runway elevation

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Site
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 68
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.9 (f).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
✓
Impact Analysis
Access to Project Area A is from East Baseline Road and Cherokee Court. Project Area A does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long‐term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles from these roadways. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.9 (g).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
✓
Impact Analysis
As shown in Figure 4-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, 19 Project Area A is
not located within a high wildfire hazard area. As such, the proposed Project’s residents would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires and impacts associated with the development of Project Area A And there is no impact. (Also refer to analysis under Issue 4.20, Wildfire.) Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. 19 https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/firehazard-severity-zones/.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials City of San Dimas page 69
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 4-2 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Site
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality City of San Dimas page 70
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:

Drainage Report, Andreasen Engineering, Inc., September 13, 2022, and is included as Appendix F to this Initial Study
Threshold 4.10 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
✓
Impact Analysis
As required by state law, all new residential development projects within San Dimas are subject to Los Angeles County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit (No. CAS004001) enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The NPDES Stormwater Permit requires that the City impose water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects and prohibits discharges from causing violations of applicable water quality or from resulting in conditions that create a nuisance or water quality impairments in receiving waters. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Construction Impacts
Development of Project Area A would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating, which have the potential to generate water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.

Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated before being discharged from the subject property.

Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Additionally, according to the City of San Dimas Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, the Project Proponent also would be required to implement an erosion control plan to minimize waterborne and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that implementation of the Project would not result in a violation of any water quality Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality City of San Dimas page 71
Cherokee Court Residential Project
standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities for the proposed development of Project Area A would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Operational Impacts
Compliance with the NPDES permit involves the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for operational-related activities. The WQMP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during operational activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated before being discharged from the Project Site.

Project Area A is fairly flat, sloping to the west. This west side of the site will need to be raised and will require a retaining wall so the lots will drain towards Cherokee Court. There is no available storm drainpipe to use for the runoff; for that reason, a 36" perforated CMP CONTECH system will be placed on each lot to collect the difference between pre-development volume and postdevelopment volume. Contech’s CMP stormwater detention and infiltration systems store stormwater and release it downstream at an allowable discharge rate or allow it to infiltrate into the surrounding soils in compliance with San Dimas Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, Low Impact Development. Therefore, water quality impacts of construction activities associated with the proposed development of Project Area A would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.10 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
✓
Impact Analysis
Golden State Water Company (GSWC) provides water service to the City of San Dimas, portions of the cities of La Verne, Walnut, and Covina, and adjacent unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. GSWC obtains its water supplies from the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) for local groundwater and treated water from Covina Irrigating Company (CIC). GSWC also purchases treated imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through the Three Valleys Municipal Water District. GSWC also purchases treated water from Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD).

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality City of San Dimas page 72
Cherokee Court Residential Project
The Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) is a sub-basin of the San Gabriel Valley Basin according to California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118, Basin Number 4-013. Under the Sustainable 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Golden State Water Company – San Dimas, the Main Basin was named as an adjudicated groundwater basin (i.e., In basins or areas where a lawsuit is brought to adjudicate, the groundwater rights of all the overliers and appropriators are determined by the court). The court also decides: Who the water rights owners are, how much groundwater those rights owners can extract, and how the groundwater area will be managed) and is exempt from the requirements of developing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and subsequently was designated a very-low priority basin in DWR’s 2019 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization report.
20 As such, the proposed development of Project Area A
cannot contribute to substantially depleting the groundwater supply.

In addition, groundwater replenishment is delivered through the flood control channels and diverted and spread at spreading grounds through the Main Basin Watermaster’s agreement with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW). Because Project Area A is not used as a spreading ground, it will not impede the replenishment of the Main Basin.

Based on the analysis above, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.10 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) 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 that
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ✓
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
✓
(iii) 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?
✓
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ✓
20 Golden State Water Company, San Dimas System, Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 2021, pps. 6-24-

25. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F9623822867%2FFINAL%20GS WC-%20San%20Dimas%202020%20UWMP.pdf
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality City of San Dimas page 73
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Impact Analysis
Existing Condition
In the existing condition, Project Area A drainage sheet flows across the property from the northwest to the southeast corner of the property and discharges into the parkway and pavement along East Baseline Road. There are no stream courses or other established natural surface drainages within or adjacent to Project Area A.

Proposed Condition
Project Area A is fairly flat sloping to the west. This west side of the site will need to be raised and will require a retaining wall so the lots will drain towards Cherokee Court. There is no available storm drainpipe to use for the runoff; for that reason, a 36" perforated CMP CONTECH system will be placed on each lot to collect the difference between pre-development volume and postdevelopment volume. Contech’s CMP stormwater detention and infiltration systems store stormwater and release it downstream at an allowable discharge rate or allow it to infiltrate into the surrounding soils in compliance with San Dimas Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, Low Impact Development.

As proposed, the design of the storm drain system will not result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water that 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.

Based on the analysis above, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.10 (e).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
✓
Impact Analysis
The Los Angeles Regional Board's Basin Plan (Basin Plan) is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan 1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, 2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state’s antidegradation policy, and 3) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable state and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality City of San Dimas page 74
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Those of other agencies are referenced in appropriate sections throughout the Basin Plan.21 As discussed under Threshold 4.10(a) and 4.10(c), with the implementation of the drainage system improvements and features as described, proposed development associated with Project Area A will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan.

As discussed under Threshold 4.10(b), Project Area A is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management program and will not substantially impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with the development of Project Area A regarding these water-related concerns. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21 Los Angeles Regional Board's Basin Plan,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.11 Land Use and Planning City of San Dimas page 75
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Threshold 4.11 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide a community? ✓
Impact Analysis
An example of a project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. Project Area A (Figure 2-1, Project Area) is the only portion of the overall Project Area that is proposed for development. Project Area A is 1.59 acres and is adjacent to two streets and surrounded by existing development. As such, the proposed development associated with Project Area A will not divide an established community, and there are no impacts. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.11 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
✓
Impact Analysis
The applicable plans and policies relating to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect are summarized below.

City of San Dimas General Plan
The General Plan is a comprehensive document consisting of text, maps, and exhibits that describe goals, objectives, and policies for future development. The City of San Dimas adopted its update to the General Plan in September 1991. Any development is intended to conform with the goals, objectives, and policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect are found throughout the General Plan, but primarily in the following chapters:
• Land Use: This chapter designates the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings, and other categories of public/private uses.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.11 Land Use and Planning City of San Dimas page 76
Cherokee Court Residential Project
• Open Space: This chapter details plans and measures for the preservation of open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health, safety, and welfare.
• Conservation: This chapter provides for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources such as water, forests, soils, air, rivers, lakes, harbors, fisheries, minerals, and wildlife.
• Safety: This chapter establishes standards and plans for emergency preparedness to protect the community from natural hazards such as fire, flooding, and earthquakes. There are also provisions for the identification of these hazards that municipalities must consider when making land use decisions.
• Noise: This element examines the sources and impacts of unwanted sounds that disrupt the physical health, psychological stability, social cohesion, property values, and economic stability of the general public. It serves as a guide for land use policies and other decisions regarding proposals that may affect the sound environment.

Table 4.11-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3 Design structure to
fit with existing neighborhood.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the project proposes seven single-family detached homes on lots ranging in size from 7,920 square feet to 11,293 square feet. Additionally, the homes are two stories in height and meet all applicable development standards of the SF-7500 zone.

Land Use 2.4.3 Control exterior-light sources. Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as required by Municipal Code §18.24.050, Property development standards involving side yard easements, all lighting shall be located in a manner such that it will not reflect upon adjoining areas.

Land Use Policy 9.1.5 Preserve important view
corridors.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the proposed residential structures are two stories and do not exceed thirty feet in height. As required by Municipal Code §18.24.040 Property development standards, the maximum ground
coverage of all structures would not exceed 35% of the total area of a lot or parcel. As such, the Project would provide view corridors to the foothills and San Gabriel Mountains visible on the horizon.

Conservation Element
Policy 2.1.2 Preserve significant historical
resources within the City of San Dimas. Evaluate
each historical structure, place, and site on a caseby-case basis.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the property at 327 East Baseline Road is not recommended eligible for the CRHR, and is not considered a historic resource under CEQA, the proposed Project will have no adverse impact on historic resources within the Project area. None of the other properties are slated for demolition at this time.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.11 Land Use and Planning City of San Dimas page 77
Cherokee Court Residential Project
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
Noise Element
Noise Element Policy 2.2.6 The City will review
noise characteristics of applicants requesting
conditional use permits, variance, zone changes
and other discretionary actions.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.13, Noise, the Project would not exceed the noise standards of the City for construction or operational noise.

Safety Element
Safety Element Policy 1.1.4 Require that
geological reports, building plans, and the
appropriate sections of environmental impact
reports be reviewed by registered engineering
geologists and/or structural engineers
Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, a geological report was submitted to the City indicating that the development of the seven homes would not expose future
residents to geologic hazards.

Safety Element Policy 1.4.4 Provide adequate
supplies of water at appropriate locations for fire
suppression.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, adequate water supply exists for fire suppression.

City of San Dimas Municipal Code
Regulation to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect is found throughout the Municipal Code, but primarily in the following chapters:

1. Title 14, Water and Sewer: This section requires that the Project Proponent prepare an urban stormwater mitigation plan that implements to the maximum extent practicable, requirements established by appropriate government agencies under CEQA, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, local ordinances, and other legal authorities intended to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies.

2. Title 15, Buildings and Construction: Contained within the Building Code is the CALGreen Code. The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare through enhanced design and construction of buildings using concepts that reduce negative impacts promote those principles that have a positive environmental impact and encourage sustainable construction practices.

3. Title 17, Subdivisions: These regulations govern the subdivision of land and stipulate that no land shall be divided and developed for any purpose that is not in conformity with the general plan, specific plan, or zoning code provision of the city adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. In addition, this chapter of the code specifically requires that no tentative map application shall be deemed to be complete until all documentation, determined to be necessary by the Director of the Department of Community Development, is submitted to the director and is determined by the Director to be complete, including environmental documentation required under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Ord. 795 §1, 1983)

4. Title 18, Zoning Ordinance: These regulations ensure that development is consistent with all elements of the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.11 Land Use and Planning City of San Dimas page 78
Cherokee Court Residential Project
zoning code and other ordinances and regulations of the city to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect.

City of San Dimas Tree Preservation
In 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 913, which serves to preserve and protect any mature significant trees growing in the City. A tree may only be removed or relocated due to disease, development of the subject property, or health and safety concerns affecting the general public.

Other Environmental Plans

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District 2022 Air Quality Management Plan: The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air. The 2022 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, regional air quality modeling, regional growth projections, and the impact of control measures.22

2. California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan: The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.23

3. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan. The Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations.24
As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation for purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. 22 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan 23 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents 24 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.12 Mineral Resources City of San Dimas page 79
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.12 Mineral Resources
Threshold 4.12 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is approximately 1.59 net acres and contains a single-family residence, a garage, and a shed. The General Plan and zoning designations are for single-family homes. Project Area A is surrounded on the east, west, and south by single-family residences, and to the north by a landscaping contractor business. Additionally, the California Department of Conservation’s Department of Mines and Geology has determined that mineral deposits are primarily found in the San Dimas Wash area of the City.
25 For these reasons, the development of Project Area A will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region, and there are no impacts. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.12 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
✓
Impact Analysis
The current General Plan Land Use designation for Project Area A is Single-Family Very Low (0.2-3 du/ac). The proposed General Plan Land Use designation is Single-Family Low (3.1 -6 du/ac).

These designations do not allow mineral resource recovery as an allowable use. As such, there will be no loss of a mineral resource recovery site and there are no impacts associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. 25 Initial Study for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update City of San Dimas March 2022. https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/San%20Dimas%20Hou sing%20Element%20Update_InitialStudy_Final%20Signed.pdf Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 80
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.13 Noise
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.

Noise Study, Entech Consulting Group, Inc., January 2022, Included as Appendix G of this Initial Study.

Threshold 4.13 (a).

Would the Project result in:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
✓
Impact Analysis
Noise analysis for projects under CEQA centers on whether a project would result in significant adverse environmental effects. Whether an increase in future noise level would result in a significant effect for purposes of CEQA is determined by comparing the existing noise level (or baseline environmental setting) to the predicted noise level with the project.

City of San Dimas Noise Ordinance
The City of San Dimas Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, Noise Ordinance, sets standards for noise levels citywide and provides the means to enforce the reduction of obnoxious or offensive noises.

Regulations that are relevant to the proposed development associated with Project Area A are listed below in Table 4.13-1.

Table 4.13-1 San Dimas Noise Limits-Residential
Zone Time
Sound Level
(A-weighted) Decibels
Residential – low and medium density 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 50 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45
Night 40
Residential – high density 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 60
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Night 50
Source: Noise Study (Appendix G)
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Traffic along East Baseline Road is the dominant source of ambient noise in the vicinity of Project Area A. One long-term and two 15-minute short-term noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of Project Area A on January 12, 2022. The purpose of the measurements was to characterize existing noise levels adjacent to Project Area A and at sensitive receptors. Figure 4-3, Noise Measurement Locations, provides an aerial photograph showing the ambient noise measurement and sensitive receiver locations, and Table 4.13-1 provides the existing ambient noise at these sites.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 81
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Figure 4-3 Noise Measurement Locations
Table 4.13-2 Noise Measurement Locations
Location Existing Leq dBA, Daytime
LT-1 60.1
ST-1 52.2
ST-2 51.5
Source: Noise Study (Appendix G)
ST-2
LT-1
ST-1
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 82
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Construction of residential land uses requires heavy equipment that would increase noise levels in the immediate area. The noise from construction activity associated with the development of Project Area A would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of construction equipment. Table 4.13-3, Construction Activity Noise, provides the average (Leq) noise levels produced by various construction activities at a distance of 50 feet between the construction activity and the receptor.

Table 4.13-3 Construction Activity Noise
Construction Activity
Reference Noise Level@ 50 feet
(dBA Leq)
Grading 83
Building Construction 80.6
Paving 81.5
Architectural Coatings 74.9
Source: Noise Study, (Appendix G).

The City of San Dimas General Plan Noise Element states: “The impact of construction noise which occurs during the daytime is considered minimal for no more than two or three months of activity.

However, late night and weekend disturbance caused by construction noise may cause a significant impact when experienced at nearby residential locations.”26 The main source of construction noise will be from the operation of heavy equipment during grading. Project Area A is 1.59 acres, and grading is estimated to take up to 3 days.

Because neither the City of San Dimas General Plan nor Municipal Code establishes numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes, a numerical construction threshold based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual was used for analysis of daytime construction noise impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise-sensitive residential land use.

A worst-case scenario was developed to estimate construction noise levels from the proposed development of the seven single-family homes on Project Area A, using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) noise levels for land use construction activities at a reference distance of 50 feet. The loudest phase of construction was selected and assumed to be operating continuously. The maximum noise level for this construction phase was predicted at distances representative of locations of nearby residential homes using the sound propagation principle that states noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. 26 City of San Dimas General Plan, Chapter VIII, Noise Element. https://sandimasca.gov/departments/community_development/planning_division/general_plan/general_plan_se ctions.php
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 83
Cherokee Court Residential Project
The Roadway Constriction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to determine which phase of construction activity for Project Area A would generate the greatest construction noise level. It was assumed that each construction activity would occur within a distance of 60 feet of the nearest residential receiver. The highest noise level that would be experienced at the nearest residential property is 83 dBA Leq. This noise level occurs during the project’s grading construction phase.

As noted above, the 83 dBA noise level would occur 60 feet from the homes on the east side of Cherokee Court, which is the eastern property line on Project Area A, as shown in Figure 2-1, Project Area. Because this is the edge of Project Area A, the noise level will be reduced by 6 dBA at 120 feet (which is in the middle of Project Area A) from the existing homes to the east. Therefore, it is expected the noise levels will be 77 dBA at this point, which is below the 80 dBA threshold. To the extent that construction activities were to take place, especially with heavy equipment operation, they would create noise effects on and adjacent to the construction site. However, given that the proposed development associated with Project Area A would only allow a minor incremental increase in grading activity, since Project Area A is small (1.59 acres) and grading would be minimal given the flat topography of the site, the noise impacts associated with the development of Project Area A could be considered less than significant.

Additionally, per Section 8.36.100 of the City’s Municipal Code, noise sources associated with construction are exempted from the City’s established noise standards as long as they do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on a Sunday or public holiday. Because construction activities associated with the development of Project Area A would only occur during the allowable construction hours, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code.

However, to ensure impacts are less than significant, the following mitigation measure is required.

Mitigation Measures NOI-1. Grading Noise Reduction. The following notes shall be placed on the grading plan:
“The construction contractor will use the following source controls when working within 60 feet of occupied residential buildings:
- Use of noise-producing equipment will be limited to the interval from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction on Sundays. - For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise-generating potential practical for their intended use. - The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated and that mufflers are working adequately. - Have only necessary equipment onsite.
- Use manually adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms”.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, Grading Noise Reduction, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 84
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
The increase in traffic associated with the development of Project Area A would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. 27 Traffic volumes on Project area roadways
would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. The proposed development associated with Project Area A would generate new vehicle trips, increasing traffic on area roadways. The CalEEMod model was used to determine the number of generated vehicle trips using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates for residential land uses.

It was determined that the proposed development associated with Project Area A would increase traffic by 66 daily trips (CalEEMod, 2020).

The proposed Project would generate new vehicle trips, thereby contributing to traffic on area roadways. Caltrans identifies Baseline Road as a major connector segment near Project Area A with an approximate ADT of 10,000. Adding 66 daily vehicle trips to the nearest segment of East Baseline Road would increase traffic along this roadway by less than 1%. Therefore, the proposed development associated with Project Area A would not generate enough traffic to result in a permanent 3‐dBA increase in ambient noise levels, and traffic noise would not exceed any local standards. Impacts associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant in this regard. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Stationary Equipment Noise Impact Analysis
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment Noise After Project Area A is developed with seven homes, a constant noise source may be generated from the operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. However, as an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise-generating mechanical equipment associated with the Cherokee Court development would typically be installed in the attics of residential units and located either within an enclosure or behind other intervening structures that would provide a level of noise shielding for nearby noise-sensitive uses. Although the operation of this equipment would generate noise, the design of these onsite HVAC units and exhaust fans would be required to comply with the regulations of the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.36.030, which states that fixed and mobile equipment or machinery noise is not allowed to exceed the noise limits outlined in Section 8.36.040 (the City’s Noise Ordinance listed above). Onsite equipment would be required, through the plan check process, to be designed and/or installed to limit noise levels that could affect nearby uses (according to the Municipal Code regulations). In addition, nighttime noise limits would apply to any equipment items required to operate between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. When these design measures are considered with the existing urban noise environment, the noise generated from HVAC systems and other mechanical equipment at the new development site will not increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA or greater. As a result, noise impacts on the existing and future adjacent residential uses in the area from HVAC or other mechanical equipment 27 Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020, p.7-1. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-april-2020-a11y.pdf Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 85
Cherokee Court Residential Project
associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.13 (b).

Would the Project result in:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
✓
Impact Analysis
The proposed development of Project Area A would involve the temporary and intermittent use of construction equipment for various construction activities, resulting in the generation of groundborne vibration levels. Groundborne vibration is a concern when sensitive receptors, such as homes, are in proximity to the vibration sources. No pile driving or blasting, which are major sources of vibration levels, would be required for the proposed Project.

City of San Dimas Noise Ordinance
Section 8.36.110 Loud and/or unusual noises, H. Vibration states: “It is unlawful to operate or permit the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. (Ord. 868 §1, 1987)”
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.28
28 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Municipal Code Text Amendment 20-0005 San Dimas MCTA 20-0005, Ultra Systems, December 2022.
https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20division/S P-11/7145_San%20Dimas_IS-MND_DRAFT_R05_Clean_12-21-22.pdf Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 86
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Construction Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities within Project Area A were estimated using data published by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) document. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction are identified at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor location, which consists of the adjacent single-family residential uses. vibration velocities could range from approximately 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment used, which corresponds to RMS velocity levels of 58 to 87 VdB at 25 feet, respectively, from the source activity. For this analysis, the construction vibration noise level at the nearest residential residence would be approximately 79 VdB at a distance of 60 feet. As the existing single-family residence on Project Area A would not be exposed to PPV groundborne vibration levels that exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold and the 87 VdB threshold for continuous/frequent intermittent vibration sources, vibration impacts associated with building damage and human annoyance associated with the development of Project Area A would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Additionally, based on previously adopted CEQA documents by the City, the vibration levels experienced at the single-family residences would be between distinctly and strongly perceptible (below 0.04 in/sec). However, construction activities would only be temporary. Any construction activities occurring along the Project Area A site boundary directly adjacent to the single-family residences would only happen for a short duration concerning the overall Project construction schedule. In addition, construction associated with the development of Project Area A would occur according to the permitted construction hours established by the City. Thus, vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Operational Vibration
The proposed residential land uses associated with the development of Project Area A would not involve stationary or mobile equipment activities that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial projects that employ heavy machinery. The primary vibration source would likely be vehicle circulation within and adjacent to the Project area during Project operations. However, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that it is unusual for vibration from vehicular sources (including buses and trucks) to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. As such, no sources of “excessive” groundborne vibration or noise levels are anticipated during the operations associated with the development of Project Area A, and there are no impacts. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.13 Noise City of San Dimas page 87
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Threshold 4.13 (c).

Would the Project result in:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
✓
Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study, the nearest airport is Brackett Field Airport located approximately 2 miles southeast of Project Area A. According to the Brackett Field Airport Compatibility Plan, Map 2A, Project Area A is located within Compatibility Zone E29 (see Figure 4-1, Brackett Field Airport Compatibility Zones). As shown in Figure 4-1, the noise impact associated with the development of Project Area A is “Low.” Because the proposed development is beyond the CNEL 55 dB contour, it is compatible with the Plan and will not result in excessive noise for people residing on Project Area A. As such, there are no impacts associated with the development of Project Area A. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
29 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 9, 2015. Available at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/brackett_alucp_final.pdf Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.14 Population and Housing City of San Dimas page 88
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.14 Population and Housing
Threshold 4.14 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A is located in a developed area of San Dimas and is served by existing water and sewer facilities, gas and electric utilities, and improved roadways. No additional infrastructure will be needed to serve the proposed development on Project Area A area other than connection to infrastructure adjacent to any new homes constructed.

The Project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Single-Family Very Low (0.2-3 du/ac) to Single-Family Low (3.1-6 du/ac). Because only seven new homes would be constructed, an increase in population would result from the increase in the allowable density for VTM No. 83304.

Under the existing General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Very Low, development at the maximum density of 3 du/ac would yield up to 4 homes. Because development at the maximum density is typically not achieved because of site configuration, zoning requirements for lot depth, width, and setback requirements the realistic yield would be 2 homes. Under the proposed General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Low, development at the maximum density of 6 du/ac would yield up to 9 homes. Because development at the maximum density is typically not achieved because of site configuration, zoning requirements for lot depth, width, and setback requirements, upon approval of VTM No. 83304, the yield would be 7 homes: an increase of 5 homes over the Single-Family Very Low Land Use. The 7 homes proposed in VTM No. 83304, including the existing SF residence, will result in a net increase of 6 homes.

Based on the California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022, San Dimas’ population as of January 1, 2022, the persons per household is 2.66. Thus, 6 new homes would add 16 persons to the city’s population, assuming all the new residents came from outside the City limits. The current population is 34,079. 30 An
additional 16 persons would increase the population to 34,095, which is a 0.05% increase.

An increase in population of 0.05% would not result in substantial population growth. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no current impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500. Regarding the impact on future 30 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.14 Population and Housing City of San Dimas page 89
Cherokee Court Residential Project
development caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500; two of the three sections of Project Area B have already been fully developed. The third section, lying immediately adjacent to the west of Project Area A, currently supports two residences on approximately 1.59 acres. Under the existing General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Very Low, development at the maximum density of 3 du/ac would yield up to 4 homes. Because development at the maximum density is typically not achieved because of site configuration, zoning requirements for lot depth, width, and setback requirements, a realistic yield would be 3 homes. Under the proposed General Plan land use designation of Single-Family Low, development at the maximum density of 6 du/ac would yield up to 9 homes. Because development at the maximum density is typically not achieved because of site configuration, zoning requirements for lot depth, width, setback requirements and access issues, a more realistic yield might be 5 homes: an increase of 1 home over the Single-Family Very Low Land Use. The 5 homes, including the two existing SF residences, will result in a net increase of 3 homes.

Three new homes would add 8 people to the city’s population, assuming all the new residents came from outside the city limits. The current population is 34,079. 31 An additional 8 persons would
increase the population to 34,087, which is a 0.02% increase.

An increase in population of 0.02% would not result in substantial population growth. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area B are less than significant.

Threshold 4.14 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A has one home that will be demolished but replaced with seven new homes.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.
31 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.15 Public Services City of San Dimas page 90
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.15 Public Services
Threshold 4.15 (a).

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
1) Fire protection? ✓
2) Police protection? ✓
3) Schools? ✓
4) Parks? ✓
5) Other public facilities? ✓
Impact Analysis
As noted in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the increase in density allowed by the General Plan amendment could result in an additional 3 homes and a population increase of 16 persons (+0.05%). The additional structures and added population would increase the demand for public services.

Fire Protection
The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides fire protection services to San Dimas. The development associated with Project Area A would be primarily served by Station No. 64, located approximately 2 miles from the Project site at 164 S. Walnut Avenue in San Dimas.

Development of Project Area A would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing fire protection resources if its resources are not augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with state and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, and paved access. The Project plans were also routed to the Fire Department for review and comment on the impacts of providing fire protection services. The Fire Department did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.15 Public Services City of San Dimas page 91
Cherokee Court Residential Project
Additionally, before the issuance of any building permit, a Project Proponent is required to pay development impact fees, which would address potential impacts on public services. Payment of the impact fees is required regardless of whether the project is subject to CEQA.32 Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project. Based on the above analysis, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A related to fire protection are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Police Protection
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides community policing to San Dimas. The Project would increase the demand for police protection services. The Project plans were routed to the Sheriff’s Department for review and comment on the impacts of providing police protection services. The Sheriff’s Department did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or physically altered sheriff facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Additionally, before the issuance of any building permit, a Project Proponent is required to pay development impact fees, which would address potential impacts on public services. Payment of the impact fees is required regardless of whether the project is subject to CEQA.33 Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including sheriff protection services, which may be applied to sheriff facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project. Based on the above analysis, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A related to police protection are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Schools
The Project proposes seven homes, a net increase of 6 homes, on Project Area A that may directly create additional students to be served by the Bonita Unified School District. However, the Project would be required to contribute fees to the Bonita Unified School District following the Leroy F.

Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). According to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project‐related impacts on school services. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than 32 Initial Study for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update City of San Dimas March 2022, p. 46. https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/San%20Dimas%20Hou sing%20Element%20Update_InitialStudy_Final%20Signed.pdf 33 Initial Study for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update City of San Dimas March 2022, p.46. https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/San%20Dimas%20Hou sing%20Element%20Update_InitialStudy_Final%20Signed.pdf Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.15 Public Services City of San Dimas page 92
Cherokee Court Residential Project
significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Parks
Section 17.36.030, Relation of land required to population density, of the San Dimas Municipal Code establishes a parkland dedication standard of 1 acre per 100 people for recreational programs as it relates to available facilities and 3 acres per 1,000 people for neighborhood parks. However, according to Section 17.36.060, Choice of land or fee, of the San Dimas Municipal Code, the City Council may determine that an in-lieu fee payment is appropriate. Because Project Area A is only

1.59 acres, the dedication of parkland on site is not feasible. As such, payment of the in-lieu fee will compensate for the Project’s demand for additional parkland, and impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Other Public Facilities
As noted in the response to Threshold 4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, the development of Project Area A could add approximately 16 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of persons concerning the current population of 34,079 (an increase of 0.05%), would not significantly increase the demand for public services, including public health services and library services that would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.16 Recreation City of San Dimas page 93
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.16 Recreation
Threshold 4.16 (a).

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
✓
Impact Analysis
Within approximately one-half mile from Project Area A are San Dimas Canyon Park, Horsethief Canyon Soccer Fields, and Marchant Park. As noted in the response to Threshold 4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, the development of Project Area A would add approximately 16 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of people would not accelerate the physical deterioration of any recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.16 (b).

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
✓
Impact Analysis
Project Area A does not include any recreational facilities. As noted in the response to Threshold

4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, the development of Project Area A could add approximately 16 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of people would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities to serve the residents of the Project. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.17 Transportation City of San Dimas page 94
Cherokee Court Residential Project

4.17 Transportation
Threshold 4.17 (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
✓
Impact Analysis
The City of San Dimas General Plan Circulation Element designates East Baseline Road as a Collector street. Cherokee Court functions as a Local street. East Baseline Road has an existing equestrian trail that abuts the southern boundary of Project Area A. The trail will remain, but Project Area A will provide a curb and gutter adjacent to the trail along the southern boundary of the site. The west side of Cherokee Court will be improved with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping.

These improvements are consistent with the programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, East Baseline Road does not serve as a bus line for Foothill Transit.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed development of Project Area A would not impede transit, pedestrian, or bicycle modes of travel or interfere with the operation of the roadway system. As such, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant.

Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.17 (b).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
✓
Impact Analysis
Changes to CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 that require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect July 1, 2020.

As a result, the City established VMT thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA review and adopted Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (TS Guidelines). All projects must include a VMT assessment that explains either why the project screens out or provides a full Exhibit A

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 83304
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.17 Transportation City of San Dimas page 95
Cherokee Court Residential Project
VMT impact analysis. A proposed project may screen out of full VMT analysis if it meets one or more of the following project screening criteria:

1. Transit Priority Areas Screening

2. Low VMT-generating Areas Screening

3. Project Type Screening
According to the TS Guidelines, projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips (e.g., 11 singlefamily housing units) can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project proposes seven single-family housing units on Project Area A; therefore, the proposed development of Project Area A is considered to have a less than significant impact, and no further VMT analysis is required. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.17 (c).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
✓
Impact Analysis
Access to Project Area A is already in place from East Baseline Road and Cherokee Court. The Project is proposing to construct street improvements to the west side of Cherokee Court that will meet City standards. In addition, the proposed development of Project Area A is located in an area developed with commercial and residential uses. The Project would not be incompatible with existing development in the surrounding area to the extent that it would create a transportation hazard because of an incompatible use. Therefore, impacts associated with the development of Project Area A are less than significant. Additionally, because no development is proposed for Project Area B, there are no impacts caused by the GPA and ZC to Single-Family Low and SF-7500.

Threshold 4.17 (d).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓
Impact Analysis
The proposed development on Project Area A would take access from Cherokee Court via East Baseline Road. The Project’s transportation design was reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department, the County Fire Department, and the County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that Exhibit A