San Dimas City Council
September 24, 2024

4.8 Noise
City of San Dimas 4.8-22 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

53.1 dBA to a high of 83.7 dBA. Other noise sources would include landscape equipment during landscape maintenance activities and fuel modification activities. These activities would be subject to the City of San Dimas Noise Ordinance, County Code Section 8.36.040, which limits sound levels during certain times of, see Table 4.8-7.28 Impacts would be less than significant.

General Plan Consistency
Table 4.8-10: San Dimas General Plan Consistency Analysis evaluates the Project’s consistency with San Dimas’s General Plan goals and policies related to noise. As shown, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan Policies related to noise.

Table 4.8-10
San Dimas General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Goals General Plan Consistency Analysis
Goal N-1A: To protect those existing regions of
the city for which the noise environmental is
deemed acceptable and those locations
throughout the City which are deemed “noisesensitive”.

Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1, construction noise levels would not exceed the noise
thresholds for nearby land uses. Additionally, the DTSP area is located approximately 0.8 miles to the northwest of Brackett Field Airport. However, the DTSP area is not identified by the General Plan Noise Element or Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to experience significant impact from the airport. Therefore, the Project would not be exposed to noise levels from Brackett Field Airport that would exceed the exterior threshold standards. Operational noise levels would be similar to existing uses.

Goal N-5: To ensure that the health and wellbeing of the citizens of San Dimas are not being compromised by exposure to excessive and
possibly harmful levels of noise.

Consistent. As discussed above, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM N-1, construction and operational noise levels would not exceed the noise thresholds for nearby land uses. Additionally, the Project would not be exposed to noise levels from Brackett Field Airport that would exceed the exterior threshold standards. The Project would not expose citizens to excessive or harmful levels of noise and would therefore be consistent with this policy.
_______
Source: City of San Dimas, General Plan, Noise Element. b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction Vibration
Based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, a minimum of 0.5 in/sec PPV is required to cause any potential building damage to the off-site sensitive uses. FTA guidelines show that a vibration 28 City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.36, Section 8.36.040

4.8 Noise
City of San Dimas 4.8-23 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
level of up to 102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 in/sec PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. As such, for purposes of this analysis, the Project would have a significant impact if construction vibration exceeds

0.5 in/sec PPV.

Table 4.8-11: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts–Building Damage presents the construction vibration impacts associated with construction in terms of building damage. As shown in Table 4.8-11, the forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold of 0.5 PPV ips for sites surrounding a site where construction would occur.

Therefore, on-site construction vibration would not result in a significant vibration impact with regard to building damage. Impacts related to building damage from on-site construction vibration would be less than significant.

Table 4.8-11
On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage Distance
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Off-Site Structures from the Project Construction Equipment Significance Threshold
(PPV ips)
Exceeds
Threshold? Vibratory
Roller
Large
Bulldozer
Caisson
Drilling
Loaded
Trucks Jackhammer Small bulldozer
FTA Reference Vibration Levels at 25 feet

0.210 0.089 0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003 0.5 No
50 feet 0.074 0.031 0.031 0.027 0.012 0.001 0.5 No
75 feet 0.040 0.017 0.017 0.015 0.007 0.001 0.5 No
100 feet 0.026 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.5 No
Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transportation Authority, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Note: Refer to Appendix D for construction vibration worksheets.

Operational Vibration
Similar to existing conditions, the primary sources of vibration associated with operation would include passenger-vehicle circulation within the Project area, on-site truck activity, and the Metro “A” Line.

Ground-borne vibration typically attenuates rapidly as a function of distance from the vibration source.

Furthermore, the majority of the Project’s operation-related vibration sources, such as mechanical equipment, would incorporate vibration attenuation mounts as required by the particular equipment specifications. Additionally, the Metro “A” Line foothill Extension Final EIR identifies potential vibration impacts at four single-family residences and one hotel located to both sides of the tracks between SR 57

4.8 Noise
City of San Dimas 4.8-24 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
and Amella Avenue.29 Vibration mitigation measures included in the Metro “A” Line foothill Extension Final EIR include the installation of ballast mats, shredded tires, or other resilient track support systems in San Dimas. The 2012 Metro “A” Line Foothill Extension Supplemental EIR found that any potential impact to vibration would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.30 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? The City of San Dimas is located approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the Brackett Field Airport. According to the City of San Dimas General Plan Noise Element aircraft noise is not considered significant at the current operational level.31 Future impacts could occur based on the number of operations at the airport.

According to the Brackett Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the DTSP area is located in compatibility Zone E.32 Land uses within this zone are located outside the 55 dB contour and would experience low noise impacts from the airport. As such, the Project would not be exposed to noise levels from Brackett Field Airport that would exceed the exterior threshold standards. Accordingly, no impacts would occur.

Cumulative Impact
Noise
Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance. Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. In the event that adjacent properties are developed at the same time as the proposed Project, adherence to the City of San Dimas Municipal Code Section 8.36.100 regarding construction would apply. Additionally, the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code do not establish numeric acceptable source noise levels or noise level increases at potentially affected receivers for construction activities. 29 Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, Gold Line Foothill Extension Pasadena to Montclair Final Environmental Impact Report (2007), Noise and Vibration, https://foothillgoldline.org/default/final-environmental-impact-report-completed2007/. Accessed August 2023. 30 Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2 (2012), https://foothillgoldline.org/default/2010-draft-supplemental-environmental-impact-report/.

Accessed August 2023.
31 City of San Dimas, General Plan, Nosie Element (1991) https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20division/General% 20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-noise-element.pdf. Accessed August 2023. 32 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Bracket Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2015), https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Brackett-Field-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan.pdf.

Accessed August 2023.

4.8 Noise
City of San Dimas 4.8-25 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Construction activities would cause an increase in noise levels as shown in Table 4.8-9. Accordingly, MM N-1 would allow construction noise levels to be reduced by a minimum of 27 dB, dependent on the construction activity and height of the temporary noise barrier used. Noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Furthermore, operational noise levels would be similar to existing conditions. Consequently, noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

4.8.4 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially significant noise impacts from Project construction.

MM N-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant for a development project in the DTSP area or their designee shall develop a Construction Noise Reduction Plan to minimize construction noise at nearby noise sensitive receptors. The Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall be developed in coordination with a certified acoustical consultant and the Project construction contractors and shall be approved by the City of San Dimas.

The Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall outline and identify noise complaint measures, best management construction practices, and equipment noise reduction measures. The Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following actions:
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (i.e., mufflers, silencers, wraps, etc.).
• Noise construction activities whose specific location on the DTSP area may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as feasibly possible from the nearest noise sensitive land uses.
• If feasible, schedule grading activities so as to avoid operating numerous pieces of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously in close proximity to the boundary of properties of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the DTSP area to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 5 to 10 dB.
• Shroud or shield all impact tools, and muffle or shield all intake and exhaust port on power equipment to reduce construction noise by 10 dB or more. • Where feasible, temporary barriers, including but not limited to, sound blankets on existing fences and walls, or freestanding portable sound walls, shall be placed as close to the noise source or as close to the receptor as possible and break the line of sight between the source and receptor where modeled levels exceed applicable

4.8 Noise
City of San Dimas 4.8-26 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
standards. Noise barriers may include, but is not necessarily limited to, using appropriately thick wooden panel walls (at least 0.5-inches think). Such barriers shall reduce construction noise by 5 to 10 dB at nearby noise-sensitive receptor locations.

Alternatively, field-erected noise curtain assemblies could be installed around specific equipment sites or zones of anticipated mobile or stationary activity. The barrier material is assumed to be solid and dense enough to demonstrate acoustical transmission loss that is at least 10 dB or greater than the estimated noise reduction effect. These suggested barrier types do not represent the only ways to achieve the indicated noise reduction in dB; they represent examples of how such noise attenuation might be attained by this measure.
• Implement noise compliant reporting. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the Project construction site, providing a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. This sign will indicate the dates and duration of construction activities. In conjunction with this required posting, a noise disturbance coordinator will be identified to address construction noise concerns received. The contact name and the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be posted on the sign.

The coordinator will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise and will notify the County to determine the cause and implement reasonable measures to the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the City.

4.8.5 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With the implementation of MM N-1, construction noise levels would be reduced by a minimum of 27 dB, dependent on the construction activity and height of the temporary noise barrier used. Noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Furthermore, operational noise levels would be similar to existing conditions. Consequently, noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

City of San Dimas 4.9-1 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

4.9 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section examines the potential population and housing impacts of the proposed DTSP.

4.9.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to population and housing are derived from the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

4.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
San Dimas is located within the six county region of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Pursuant to federal and state law, SCAG serves as a Council of Governments, Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties. One of the primary functions of SCAG is to forecast population, housing and employment growth for each region, subregion, and city to support regional and local planning efforts.

In September 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal as its 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Connect SoCal contains growth forecasts relied upon by regional and local agencies in planning growth.1 Table 4.9-1: City of San Dimas: Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts (SCAG) show forecasts for the City contained in Connect SoCal that project growth of 800 people, 200 housing units and 1,400 employees between 2016 and 2045.
1 Southern California Associations of Governments, 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (May 2020). Accessed September 2022. https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-2 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Table 4.9-1
City of San Dimas: Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts (SCAG) Year Change 2016 – 2045
2016 2045 Growth Percent Growth
Population 34,200 35,000 800 2.3%
Housing 12,100 12,300 200 1.7%
Employment 11,500 12,900 1,400 12.2%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020 Adopted Demographics and Growth Forecast (May 2020) https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/Connect-SoCal-Final-Plan.aspx.

Regulatory Framework
SB 375- The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) focuses on aligning transportation, housing, and other land uses to achieve regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets established under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill No. 32 (AB 32).

SB 375 requires California Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), with the purposes of identifying policies and strategies to reduce per capita GHG emissions generated by vehicles. The SCS must identify the general location of land uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region; identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need; identify a transportation network to service the regional transportation needs; gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resources areas and farmland in the region; consider the State housing goals; set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region; and allow the regional transportation plan to comply with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (42 USC § 7401 et seq.). The development pattern in the SCS, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, must reduce the GHG from automobiles and light duty trucks to achieve the GHG emission reduction targets approved by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). If the SCS does not achieve the GHG emission targets set by ARB, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be developed to demonstrate how the targets could be achieved.

SB 375 also imposes a number of new requirements on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. SB 375 synchronizes the schedules of the RHNA and regional transportation planning processes.

The RHNA must be developed after the regional transportation plan, using the development pattern included in the SCS. Previously, the RHNA determination was based on population projections produced

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-3 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
by the Department of Finance. SB 375 requires the determination to be based upon population projections by the Department of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing the regional transportation plan. If the total regional population forecasted and used in the regional transportation plan is within a range of three percent of the regional population forecast completed by the Department of Finance for the same planning period, then the population forecast developed by the regional agency and used in the regional transportation plan shall be the basis for the determination. If the difference is greater than three percent, then the two agencies shall meet to discuss variances in methodology and seek agreement on a population projection for the region to use as the basis for the RHNA determination.

If no agreement is reached, then the basis for the RHNA determination shall be the regional population projection created by the Department of Finance.

Existing law requires local governments to adopt a housing element as part of their general plan. Unlike the rest of the general plan, where updates sometimes occur at intervals of 20 years or longer, under previous law the housing element was required to be updated as frequently as needed and no less than every five years. Under SB 375, this period has been timed so that the housing element period begins no less than 18 months after adoption of the regional transportation plan to encourage closer coordination between the housing and transportation planning.

California Department of Housing and Community Development State housing law (Government Code § 65580 et seq.) requires local government plans to address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The housing element is one of seven State-mandated elements that every general plan must contain, and it is required to be updated every eight years and determined legally adequate by the State.

The purpose of the housing element is to identify the community’s housing needs, state the community’s goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs. In addition, the Housing Element defines the related policies and programs that the community will implement in order to achieve the stated goals and objectives. This would be accomplished through the allocation of regional housing needs consistent with the SCS.

Local
City of San Dimas Housing Element
The Housing Element is required by California State law to be a component of every city’s General Plan because housing needs are recognized as a Statewide concern. Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element must identify the City’s housing needs, the sites that can accommodate these needs, and the policies and programs to ensure that the housing units necessary to meet these needs can be provided. The primary goal of the Housing Element is to provide a range of housing opportunities for all income groups. Pursuant

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-4 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
to California State Government Code Sections 65580-65589.9, the Housing Element is required to be updated periodically on a four, five, or eight year cycle, depending on various factors established by the State. The City of San Dimas is on an eight year cycle.

The Housing Element was recently updated to cover the period of 2021-2029, adopted by the San Dimas City Council on September 27, 2022. The population and housing projections within are mostly derived from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and California Department of Finance forecasts, along with population data and projections provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Housing Element is the City’s comprehensive plan for housing – providing housing for future generations of San Dimas residents, maintaining the quality and character of the community, and addressing the most pressing local needs in a manner that reflects the values of the community.2 The City of San Dimas will achieve these goals amidst a variety of governmental, infrastructure, and market constraints to residential development through aligning its actions in accordance with five detailed goals, each of which contain policies and actions established to guide the development and preservation of a balanced inventory of housing to meet the needs of present and future residents of the City. These goals embody the City’s commitment to meeting housing needs. The five detailed goals are as follows:

Goal HE-1: Neighborhoods of well-maintained homes, ample public services and facilities, open spaces and recreation, and well-maintained infrastructure that provide quality places to reside.

Goal HE-2: Opportunities for well-designed and appropriate housing that is diverse in type, location, affordability, and tenure and that meets the full spectrum of current and future housing needs in San Dimas.

Goal HE-3: Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove or minimize governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

Goal HE-4: Assist in the development, provision, and retention of long-term affordable housing opportunities for residents, including lower and moderate income households, individuals of different ages, and those with special needs.

Goal HE-5: Ensure housing opportunities are available to all without regard to race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, marital status, familial status, age, gender, 2 City of San Dimas, General Plan, Housing Element, page 1-1.

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-5 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
disability, source of income, sexual orientation, military status, or other arbitrary factors.

The Housing Element addresses meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target identified by SCAG for the 2021 to 2029 planning period. The RHNA process reflects the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) projections of regional estimates of housing need based on population projections from the California Department of Finance. HCD apportions the statewide housing need to regional councils of governments. For this present housing element cycle, the southern California region was allocated a total of 1.34 million new units for the 2021-2029 planning period. The RHNA is nearly three times the allocation of prior housing element cycles and is largely due to historic underproduction of housing units.

As southern California’s designated council of government, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) then develops a methodology to allocate, by income level, the region’s share of statewide need to each city. This process is achieved as part of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (formerly the Regional Comprehensive Plan). In allocating housing needs among the various local governments, SCAG considers the following factors:
• Market demand for housing
• Employment opportunities
• Availability of suitable sites and public facilities
• Commuting patterns
• Type and tenure of housing
• Loss of units in assisted housing developments
• Over-concentration of lower income households
The City was allocated a final planning goal of 1,248 housing units. The 2021-2029 Housing Element relies on the preparation of the DTSP to redesignate housing anticipated to accommodate the RHNA. The Housing Programs in the Housing Element define the specific actions the City will undertake to implement the element. Adoption of the DTSP is one of the identified programs proposed to Create general plan residential and mixed use land use/zoning designations and rezone up to 94 acres to allow:
> 12-16 du/ac: 5.5 acres multifamily housing
> 16-25 du/ac: 2.5 acres multifamily housing
> 25-35 du/ac: 5.8 acres multifamily housing; 7.3 acres mixed use > 35-45 du/ac: 5.9 acres multifamily housing; 34.6 acres mixed use

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-6 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
> 45-55 du/ac; 21.5 acres for multifamily housing; 11.3 acres mixed use In addition, this Housing Element program calls for the DTSP to assign performance standards of 50 to 75% residential uses as specified on sites shown in the land use inventory in the Housing Element needed to accommodate the RHNA and establish developments standards that encourage and facilitate achieving maximum densities.

4.9.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
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)?
As discussed above, the DTSP is identified in the City’s 2021 - 2029 Housing Element as a program intended to support the City meeting its RHNA goal of providing 1,248 additional housing units in the City over this planning period. San Dimas had 12,803 housing units as of 2020, and approximately three-quarters of that total was built in the 1960s through the 1980s. Over the past decade the number of housing units built in San Dimas has slowed to approximately 2 percent per decade, similar to nearby jurisdictions in this portion of the San Gabriel Valley.

According to SCAG, San Dimas’s housing stock is expected to increase to 14,051 units by 2030, consistent with the City’s share of the regional housing need for 2021-2029. The majority of growth is anticipated to be multiple-family developments around the downtown and infill single-family developments that would be facilitated by the DTSP.

The DTSP is proposed to implement the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. Due to the rezoning of sites that would occur with the DTSP, there is a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units, consistent with the City’s RHNA target. The maximum capacity of the zoning that would be established by the DTSP is approximately 3,600 units. The City’s focus is on meeting the RHNA 2029 goal of providing 1,248 additional housing units. Additional growth could occur after 2029 based on the additional development capacity that would be created by the DTSP.

Based on the average household size in San Dimas of 2.91 persons per household, the rezoning within the proposed DTSP Area has the potential to increase the City’s population by approximately 3,631 if all of these 1,248 units are constructed, and all of the residents were also new to the City. The resulting increase in population of 1.76 percent (i.e., an increase of 557 people) from the 2021 population. By 2045, the City’s population is projected by SCAG to increase to 35,000, which is an increase of 2.93 percent (i.e., an increase of 997 people) from the 2021 population. If all 1,248 new units (i.e., 3,631 potential people) are occupied by new residents, the population could increase to 37,634, which is an increase of 3.8 percent

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-7 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
(i.e., an increase of 3,631 people) from the 2021 population. This increase in population is higher than the SCAG 2030 population projection of 34,600 and 2045 population projection of 35,000. However, an addition of 1,248 housing units would not substantially induce population growth as the projected growth represents a difference of 9.06 percent (i.e., 3,134 people) and 7.53 percent (i.e., 2,634 people) for the years 2030 and 2045, respectively. It is also possible that existing residents currently sharing homes may locate to new units. As the development potential of the proposed DTSP is greater than the current RHNA target of 1,248 units, additional growth in housing units and population could occur between 2029 and 2045 that would further exceed the current SCAG growth forecast for San Dimas. However, all potential growth that may occur as a result of approval of the DTSP would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which the DTSP is proposed to implement.

While the proposed project could potentially increase the population forecast by approximately 9 percent or greater by 2045, this increase is not considered substantial as the growth would occur over an extended period and the proposed project is intended to help the City implement its Housing Element and meet its RHNA allocation. Future housing development facilitated by the proposed DTSP would occur incrementally over time through 2045, based on market conditions and other constraints. For this reason, the population and housing growth that may be facilitated by the DTSP is considered consistent with the projected growth in the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the proposed project would occur in an urbanized location near existing utilities and service systems, and areas already served by public services (e.g., police and fire protection, and other emergency responders). Specifically, the DTSP would facilitate growth near the new Metro “A” Line (formerly known as the “Gold”/“L” Line) light rail station that will be opening in 2025, consistent with policies in the SCAG RTP/SCS.

All future housing development facilitated by the proposed project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include additional environmental review under CEQA, and would be assessed on a project-by-project basis for potential effects related to the growth that would be facilitated by the DTSP. For these reasons, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth within the City and impacts are less than significant. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed above, the DTSP is proposed to implement the City’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. The DTSP will rezone property within the Specific Plan area, with a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units by 2029 and additional housing units by 2045. The majority of these units are anticipated to be developed on sites identified in the Housing Element that are vacant or contain

4.9 Population and Housing
City of San Dimas 4.9-8 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
commercial or industrial uses. SB 330 requires the replacement of any housing units that would be removed as part of any project through the year 2030. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed DTSP would not result in significant impacts due to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing.

Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project, in combination with other development projects in the unincorporated County areas, adjacent jurisdictions, and the City in accordance with the adopted General Plan, would contribute to future population, housing, and employment growth within the area. While the Project would contribute to the growth of the County and the City, any population, housing, and employment growth as a result of the Project is consistent with increases anticipated by the City’s General Plan and regional growth forecasts. For this reason, the Project would not contribute to any cumulative population and housing growth impacts.

4.9.5 MITIGATION
The Project would not result in any significant population and housing impacts and no mitigation is required.

City of San Dimas 4.10-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.10.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) addresses the potential impacts of the proposed DTSP on public services.

4.10.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to public services are derived from the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.
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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

4.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection
San Dimas encompasses approximately 15.43 square miles and is served by Division II of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). LACoFD serves all of the unincorporated area within Los Angeles County, as well as 60 incorporated cities, 59 of which are in Los Angeles County and one in Orange County.

LACoFD serves these areas with stations staffed with County personnel or contract staff. Two LACoFD fire stations are located within the City of San Dimas, Station 64 at 164 S. Walnut Avenue and Station 141 at 1124 W. Puente Avenue. In addition, the LACoFD’s area of expertise includes firefighting, emergency medical services, urban search and rescue and hazardous materials, air and wildland, lifeguards, dispatch, prevention, and public education. LACoFD provides a wide array of fire prevention services focused on improving and maintaining fire and life safety within the community. Fire prevention activities ensure businesses, structures, open spaces, and construction projects are in compliance with adopted fire codes, standards, and ordinances. LACoFD currently enforces the 2022 California Fire, Building, Electrical, City

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Ordinances, as amended by the Los Angeles County Municipal Code, in addition to National Fire Protection Association standards; Title 19, of the California Public Safety Code; and the California Health and Safety Code.

Police Protection
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) provides general law enforcement, detention, and court services for the residents, business owners, and visitors of Los Angeles County. LASD provides law enforcement services to the City of San Dimas by contract and maintains a station in San Dimas, located at 270 S. Walnut Avenue.

The San Dimas Sheriff’s Station encompasses approximately 276 square miles in its patrol area, serving the unincorporated communities of Azusa, Covina, Glendora, La Verne, Claremont, Pomona, and a large portion of the Angeles National Forest in addition to the City of San Dimas. The population for the areas policed by the San Dimas Station is approximately 105,000, with approximately 69,000 in the unincorporated areas and more than 36,000 in the City of San Dimas.1 The San Dimas Sheriff’s Station is the central location for 18 patrol deputies, 1 motorcycle reserve deputy, 3 CAT team leaders, 3 special assignment officers (CAT team), 1 team sergeant, 2 community service assistants, 1 law enforcement technician (crime prevention officer), and 1 school resource officer.

Schools
Bonita Unified School District (BUSD) serves the communities of San Dimas, La Verne, and part of Glendora. BUSD is headquartered in San Dimas and has 14 schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. New residential units in San Dimas are subject to an impact fee that is collected by the BUSD are used for the provision of additional and reconstructed or modernized school facilities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts; as such, the impacts for any future development that pays the impact fee in full would be considered less than significant.

Covina-Valley Unified School District (C-VUSD) serves the communities of Covina, West Covina, Glendora, San Dimas, and Irwindale. C-VUSD is headquartered in Covina and has 19 schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. New residential units in San Dimas are subject to an impact fee that is collected by the C-VUSD are used for the provision of additional and reconstructed or modernized school facilities.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), payment of statutory fees is deemed to be full and 1 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, San Dimas Station Information. Accessed February 2023.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
complete mitigation of impacts; as such the impacts for any future development that pays the impact fee in full would be considered less than significant.

Libraries
The City of San Dimas is served by the Los Angeles County Library system, which has one library in the City located at 145 North Walnut Avenue. The San Dimas Library is located within the DTSP planning area, and is part of the municipal complex situated adjacent to the Civic Center Park between East First Street and East Second Street. The library is 13,628 square feet and contains a community meeting room, spaces for children and teens, and a book drop.

Regulatory Framework
State of California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforces the provisions of the State Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires implementation of safety and health regulations under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Examples of general requirements related to fire protection and prevention include maintaining fire suppression equipment specific to a project site; providing a temporary or permanent water supply of sufficient volume, duration, and pressure; properly operating on-site fire-fighting equipment (e.g., sprinklers); and keeping sites free from the accumulation of unnecessary combustible materials.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Emergency Management Agency was incorporated into the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009, by Assembly Bill (AB) 38 (Nava), and merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall state agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the state’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards—natural, man-made, emergencies, and disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

The Cal OES Fire and Rescue Division coordinates statewide response of fire and rescue mutual aid resources to all types of emergencies, including hazardous materials incidents. The Operations Section under the Fire and Rescue Division coordinates the California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System and coordinated response through the Mutual Aid System includes responses to major fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hazardous materials, and other disasters.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
California Building Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC), in Part 2 of Title 24 of the CCR identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBSC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. The CBSC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CBSC went into effect on January 1, 2023. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBSC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBSC include the installation of fire sprinklers in all new residential, high-rise, and hazardous materials buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC), contained in Part 9 of Title 24 of the CCR, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 CFC went into effect on January 1, 2023. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The CFC regulates building standards in the CBSC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.

California Construction Article XIII, Section 35
Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution at Subdivision (a)(2) provides: “The protection of public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.” Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution was adopted by the voters in 1993 under Proposition 172. Proposition 172 directed the proceeds of a 0.50-percent sales tax to be expended exclusively on local public safety services. California Government Code Sections 30051-30056 provide rules to implement Proposition 172. Public safety services include fire protection. Section 30056 mandates that cities and counties are not allowed to spend less of their own financial resources on their combined public safety services in any given year compared to the 1992-93 fiscal year. Therefore, an agency is required to use Proposition 172 to supplement its local funds used on fire protection services, as well as other public safety services. In City of Hayward v. Board of Trustee of California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution requires local agencies to provide public safety services, including

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-5 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
fire protection and emergency medical services, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the county will comply with that provision to ensure that public safety services are provided.2 Police
State and County Emergency Response/Evacuations Plans
OES coordinates the overall response of State agencies to major disasters in support of local government.

The office is responsible for (1) assuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from natural, manmade, and war-caused emergencies; and (2) assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Accordingly, the Cal OES maintains the State Emergency Plan, which outlines the organizational structure for the State's response to natural and manmade disasters. The Cal OES also assists local governments and other state agencies in developing their own emergency preparedness and response plans, in accordance with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and State Emergency Plan, for earthquakes, floods, fires, hazardous material incidents, nuclear power plant emergencies, and dam breaks. Each jurisdiction is required to show the Cal OES that it follows SEMS through several measures, including preparation and maintenance of an up-todate emergency management plan, which incorporates an emergency evacuation plan. Non-compliance with SEMS can result in the state withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster. The Cal OES also coordinates an emergency organizational network, comprised of the Cal OES, local Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) in the State, cities, and regional EOCs within each county.

The regional office of the Cal OES is in Los Alamitos, and the County EOC is in downtown Los Angeles. The County Office of Emergency Management has prepared the County’s All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, which details the coordination of County agencies during and after a catastrophic event and establishes the framework for the mutual aid agreements with the CHP, and federal, state, and other local governments in the region. It also serves as the emergency management plan (including emergency evacuation plan) for the entire County. The County recently released the draft 2019 County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan.3
The County EOC is responsible for emergency operations in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles.

Should an emergency occur, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and LACoFD would provide the first response, as well as the initial contact with other agencies that may need to be involved, such as the 2 City of Hayward v. Board Trustee of California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, 847. 3 Los Angeles County, Chief Executive Office – Office of Emergency Management, 2019 County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation Plan, (2019).

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-6 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Red Cross. Funding for the County’s EOC is primarily from the County General Fund, with a small percentage coming from federal funds, which are funneled through California’s OES to the County’s EOC.

Schools
AB 2926
The State of California has traditionally been responsible for the funding of local public schools. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed AB 2926 in 1986. This bill allowed school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Development impact fees were also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act, which required school districts to contribute a matching share of project costs for construction, modernization, or reconstruction. The provisions of AB 2926 have since been expanded and revised by AB 1600.

Assembly Bill 1600
AB 1600, which created Sections 66000, et seq., of the Government Code, was enacted by the State in 1987. AB 1600 requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval for a development project. AB 1600 limits the ability of a school district to levy School Fees unless (i) there is a need for the School Fee revenues generated and (ii) there is a nexus or relationship between the need for School Fee revenues and the type of development project on which the School Fee is imposed.

Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1A
Title 5 (Education Code) of the California Code of Regulations governs all aspects of education within the State.

Senate Bill (SB) 50 and Proposition 1A, both of which passed in 1998, provided a comprehensive school facility financing and reform program, in part by authorizing a $9.2 billion school facilities bond issue, and school construction cost containment provisions. Specifically, the bond funds are to provide $2.9 billion for new construction and $2.1 billion for reconstruction/modernization needs statewide. The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and reinstate the school facility fee cap for legislative actions (e.g., General Plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments). According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.”

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-7 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district. Level One Fees are the statutory fees, which can be adjusted for inflation every two years. Level Two Fees allow school districts to impose fees beyond the base statutory cap, under specific circumstances. Level Three Fees come into effect if the State runs out of bond funds after 2006, which would allow school districts to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation less any local dedicated school funding.

In order to accommodate students from new development projects, school districts may alternatively finance new schools through special school construction funding resolutions and/or agreements between developers, the affected school districts, and occasionally, other local governmental agencies. These special resolutions and agreements often allow school districts to realize school mitigation funds in excess of the developer fees allowed under SB 50.

AB 97
The approved Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) included in the 2013–2014 California State Budget changed the way State officials disperse funds to schools. Categorical programs often dictated which schools received funding in the past. Each categorical program maintained a set of regulations and rules which a school would have to follow to receive state funding. The LCFF affects school funding opportunities in two ways; first, the multiple categorical funding requirements are removed, and schools no longer are forced to comply with categorical spending rules to ensure funding. Second, disadvantaged schools and students receive additional resources. While all schools receive funding based on enrollment numbers, schools with foster children, non-native speakers, or students living in poverty would receive additional funding.

Propositions
On November 5, 2002, California voters passed Proposition 47, which authorized the issuance of $13.05 billion in State bonds and also enacted AB 16, which provided for additional reformation of the School Building Program. AB 16, among other things, clarified that if the State Allocation Board is no longer approving apportionments for new construction due to the lack of funds available for new school facilities construction, a school district may increase its Level II Fee to the Level III Fee. With the issuance of the State bonds authorized by the passage of Proposition 47, this section of AB 16 became inoperable.

Furthermore, Proposition 55 was approved on March 2, 2004, which authorized the sale of $12.3 billion in State bonds. In addition, California voters approved Proposition 1D in the general election held on November 7, 2006. Proposition 1D authorized the issuance of $10.4 billion in State bonds.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-8 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Most recently, California voters approved Proposition 51 (the California Public School Facility Bonds Initiative) in the general election held on November 8, 2016, authorizing the issuance of $9 billion in bonds to fund the improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Parks
Mitigation Fee Act
The California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code sections 66000, et seq., allows cities to establish fees which will be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating the impact that the development projects have upon the City’s ability to provide specified public facilities.

County of Los Angeles
Fire Protection
Los Angeles County Fire Code and Building Code
The Los Angeles County Fire Code (Title 32) and Building Code (Title 26) establish standards for the construction, design, and distribution of fire suppression facilities. These policies ensure new developments comply with criteria regarding fire flow, minimum distance to fire stations, public and private fire hydrants, and access provisions for firefighting units.

LACoFD Strategic Plan 2017-2021
Additionally, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the update to goals and actions to achieve the goals of the fire services within the County. The Strategic Plan 2017-2021 serves as the latest organization guide for the LACoFD.4
City of San Dimas
San Dimas General Plan
The City’s General Plan is primarily a policy document that sets goals concerning the community and gives direction to growth and development. In addition, it outlines the programs that were developed to accomplish the goals and policies of the General Plan. City policies pertaining to fire services and police services are included in the Public Safety and Noise Element of the City’s General Plan. 4 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Strategic Plan 2017-2021, accessed September 2020, https://fire.lacounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/LACoFD-Strategic-Plan-2017-2021.pdf.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-9 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Fire policies relevant to the Specific Plan Area include:

Goal Statement S-2: Provide effective and efficient public safety services including fire and police protection and emergency access.

Objective 1.4: Provide effective and efficient fire and protection services.

Policy 1.4.1: Ensure that existing and new development is served by adequate response times for police, fire, and paramedic services.

Policy 1.4.3: Restrict the use of flammable materials and provide additional setbacks in fire hazard zones.

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

Policy 1.4.5: Encourage new projects to have adequate fire service equipment and sprinkler systems.

Implementation Measure (g): Fire Department Programs: Continued implementation of the following public education programs:
• Junior Fireman program in elementary schools.
• Community programs for homeowners groups and civic
organizations on request.
• “Shakie-Quakie” earthquake safety program for school
children.

Implementation Measure (i): Fire Hazard Areas: Fire retardant roofing (Class B or better) and brush clearance zone shall continue to be required in wildland fire hazard areas such as the foothills and Via Verde.

Preserve to the extent practical the fire roads in the City’s foothill areas.

Implementation Measure (j): Fire Roads: Preserve fire roads in the foothills and address the fencing of fire roads on private property.

Implementation Measure (k): Education: Implement a safety education program for children and seniors encompassing fire and police protection and geologic hazards.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-10 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Police policies relevant to the Specific Plan Area include:

Chapter VII: Safety of the City’s General Plan includes goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures related to the police protection services that are needed to support the City.5 Chapter VII of the City’s General Plan outlines the following relevant goals and policies related to law enforcement services:

Goal Statement S-2: Provide effective and efficient public safety services including fire and police protection and emergency access.

Objective 1.4: Provide effective and efficient fire and protection services.

Policy 1.4.1: Ensure that existing and new development is served by adequate response times for police, fire, and paramedic services.

Implementation Measure (l): Sheriff’s Department Programs: Continued implementation of the following programs:
• Neighborhood watch.
• Child alert personal safety program.
• SANE substance abuse program.
• Sober Graduation.

Education policies relevant to the Specific Plan Area include:

The General Plan Land Use Element identifies joint use and development opportunities with the school districts for parklands as a major opportunity for public and semi-public uses in the City. The joint use and development potentials with the school districts offers a major opportunity for the City to offer additional park and recreation services without purchasing additional land, and utilizing land that would ordinarily not be used during non-school hours.6

4.10.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
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.

The DTSP includes a Public/Semi Public zone for the existing cultural and civic center of the City of San Dimas, including San Dimas City Hall, the San Dimas Public Library, Senior Center, Post Office, Police 5 City of San Dimas General Plan, Chapter VII: Safety,
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf, accessed February 2023. 6 Land Use Element, Page II-13.

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-11 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Station, USDA Forest Service facility, and Fire Station. In addition, the DTSP identifies areas dedicated for open space including Pioneer Park, Rhoads Park, and Civic Center Park.

Implementation of the DTSP would increase the number of residential and non-residential buildings and people within the plan area, which would result in more demand for public services. However, all potential growth that may occur as a result of approval of the DTSP would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which the DTSP is proposed to implement.

While the proposed project would increase residential population and employment within the DTSP area, as discussed in Section 4-9: Population & Housing, this growth is not considered substantial in relation to current growth forecasts as this growth would occur over an extended period of time and the proposed Project is intended to help the City implement its Housing Element. Additionally, future housing development facilitated by the DTSP would occur in an urbanized location served by public services.

Furthermore, the DTSP would not expand the service area for agencies currently providing public services within San Dimas and no expansion of existing public facilities would be required to provide public services to meet the demands from growth in the DTSP area.

The Project would allow development in areas already served by existing public service facilities. Though the new uses expected from the Project could result in additional calls for service, it is not expected that new facilities would be necessary to serve the Project area. As the residential population and commercial development increase in the DTSP area, service providers would continue to monitor resource demands to ensure adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available. Further, as future projects are built, they would be required to comply with all appropriate codes and regulations as well as pay required development and impact fees. Revenue generated from the development fees would go towards improvement and maintenance of existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and the hiring of additional personnel as needed.

Future development would be required to pay School Impact fees which, as provided by state law, would fully mitigate the impact of a future project. Residential development constructed under the DTSP would be required to pay the current City’s park fees, referred to at the state level as Quimby Act Fees, at the time of project construction.

Based on the above, impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the DTSP, in combination with other development projects in the City and adjacent jurisdictions would contribute to future growth within the area and therefore increased demand for public

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
City of San Dimas 4.10-12 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
services. As stated above, the Project would be consistent with increases anticipated by the City’s General Plan and regional growth forecasts and would not expand existing service areas. As such, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to public service facilities.

4.10.4 MITIGATION
In accordance with Senate Bill 50, future projects under the DTSP would be required to pay applicable development impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65996, payment of these fees is deemed to fully mitigate cumulative CEQA impacts of new development on school facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant, and no other mitigation is necessary.

City of San Dimas 4.11-1 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

4.11 TRANSPORTATION

4.11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section examines the potential transportation impacts of the proposed DTSP.

4.11.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to transportation are derived from the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional
Interstate 210/State Route 210, also known as the Foothill Freeway, is a major east-west freeway corridor, with the western portion from Los Angeles to Glendora designated as an Interstate freeway and from Glendora to Redlands as a state freeway. The primary access from Interstate 210/State Route 210 to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area is provided by Exit 46 at San Dimas Avenue, approximately 0.8 miles north of the DTSP area.

State Route 57, also known as the Orange Freeway, is a major north-south state freeway corridor that connects Orange County to Los Angeles County and provides regional vehicular access to San Dimas. The primary access from State Route 57 to the DTSP area is provided by Exit 24B at Arrow Highway, immediately to the west of the DTSP Area. Secondary access from State Route 57 to the DTSP area is provided by Exit 24A at Covina Boulevard, which turns into Cataract Avenue within the DTSP area, approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the DTSP area.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-2 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Downtown Specific Plan Area
Bonita Avenue is classified as an urban minor east-west arterial which also serves as a direct on- and off - ramp for SR 57 northbound at the western boundary of the DTSP area. Bonita Avenue is approximately

1.25 miles long in the DTSP area, extending from Arrow Highway to near Gaffney Avenue. Bonita Avenue changes configuration on either side of Cataract Avenue and the railway crossing, from a four-lane street with a center turning median and on-street parking west of Cataract Avenue (0.45 miles in the DTSP area), to a two-lane road with a center turning median and on-street parking east of Cataract Avenue. East of Walnut Avenue (0.30 miles in the DTSP area), Bonita Avenue becomes a four-lane street again. Bonita Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour west of Cataract Avenue, 25 miles per hour between Cataract Avenue and Walnut Avenue, and 40 miles per hour east of Walnut Avenue. Bonita Avenue has an uncommon bulbous intersection at Cataract Avenue to accommodate the diagonal railway crossing.

San Dimas Avenue is an urban minor north-south arterial located in the center of DTSP area which serves as a connection from SR 210 to the north. San Dimas Avenue is 0.32 miles long within the DTSP area from First Street to the north and Arrow Highway to the south. The road is configured with two lanes with a center turn median and features a raised center median at its crossing with the Metro “A” Line railway heading south. The posted speed limit on San Dimas Avenue is 35 miles per hour. Parallel on-street parking is permitted, except for a portion northbound between Arrow Highway and the railway where parking is angled off the roadway and separated by a raised median. Mature oak trees line San Dimas Avenue from SR 210 to Bonita Avenue.

Arrow Highway is an east-west arterial that serves as the main connection through the central portion of San Dimas and may serve as a bypass for Bonita Avenue. Within the DTSP area, Arrow Highway is approximately 0.36 miles long spanning from the SR 57 overpass to Eucla Avenue. This portion of Arrow Highway is six lanes with a center median and no on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Additionally, bicycles travel along this corridor.

Eucla Avenue is a north-south two-lane urban connector which serves as a collector in the DTSP area from the railway to Arrow Highway. It is the westernmost north-south road in the DTSP area and notably completes a triangle shared with Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway. Eucla Avenue is 0.29 miles in the DTSP area. Eucla Avenue is primarily configured with two lanes separated by a double yellow line and dedicated left and right turn lanes to the south at the intersection of Arrow Highway. Eucla Avenue has a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour and features on-street parking. Eucla Avenue is a common route for bicyclists connecting to or from Bonita Avenue as an alternative to Arrow Highway.

Acacia Street is a north-south minor collector located between Eucla Avenue and Cataract Avenue, which forms a T-intersection with Bonita Avenue at its northern end. The street is 0.13 miles long in the DTSP

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-3 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
area. Acacia Street is configured with two lanes and features on-street parking. The street permits speeds at 25 miles per hour and is a common route for bicyclists connecting to or from Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway.

Commercial Street is an east-west residential street located between Cataract Avenue and San Dimas Avenue. The eastern portion of Commercial Street corridor will connect travelers to the future Metro “A” Line Station just east of San Dimas Avenue. Commercial Street is not completely located within the DTSP area and is approximately 0.25 miles long. The street provides a key connection from the residential neighborhood surrounding it to the DTSP study area and to Pioneer Park located at the western extent of the corridor. Commercial Street is configured with two lanes and features on-street parking.

Cataract Avenue is a north-south urban collector, most notably split by the diagonal railway crossing at Bonita Avenue. It is approximately 0.07 miles long in the DTSP area as the street primarily serves residential uses beyond Bonita Avenue. The street is configured with two lanes, separated by a double yellow line between Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway, with dedicated left turn lanes to the north at the intersection of Bonita Avenue and south at the intersection of Arrow Highway. The street has a posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour and features on-street parking.

Monte Vista Avenue is a north-south local street, located in a walkable area of the Bonita Avenue corridor and is permanently closed to vehicles where the corridor intersects with the rail corridor to accommodate the travel of “A” Line trains over the new light rail bridge. Monte Vista Avenue is configured with two lanes with double-yellow line is only present south of Bonita Avenue to the rail right-of-way. The street features four bulb-outs at the corners at the intersection with Bonita Avenue and on-street parking. Monte Vista Avenue has a speed limit is 25 miles per hour. While closed to vehicles at the railway corridor, Monte Vista Avenue allows north-south pedestrian access via a pedestrian underpass that connects to Railway Street on its southern boundary with the DTSP area.

Iglesia Street/First Street are local streets that serve public facilities such as San Dimas City Hall, the Senior Center, and the San Dimas L.A. County Library. Iglesia Street forms a T-intersection with Bonita Avenue at its southern end and intersects with 1st Street to the north. Both streets are configured with two-lanes and feature on-street parking. Both streets are approximately 0.7 miles long in the DTSP area and have speed limits of 25 miles per hour.

Walnut Avenue is a north-south urban collector located in the eastern portion of DTSP area. The portion of Walnut Avenue that is located within the DTSP area is approximately 0.31 miles long from San Dimas City Hall to Arrow Highway. Walnut Avenue is configured with two-lanes divided by double yellow lines

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-4 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
and features on-street parking only south of the Fire Station. Walnut Avenue is a designated bike route and has speed limits set at 30 miles per hour.

Transit Service
Transit service in San Dimas and the Downtown area is primarily operated by Foothill Transit. While there currently is no service, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is planning to extend Metro Rail service through San Dimas through the “A” Line (formerly known as the “Gold”/“L” Line), which is expected to be completed in 2025.

Foothill Transit
Foothill Transit provides fixed-route bus service and paratransit service to eastern Los Angeles County and portions of San Bernardino County and Orange County. Foothill Transit operates 39 bus lines in 22 cites, mainly within the San Gabriel Valley. Two Foothill Transit routes operate within DTSP area.

Route 492: Montclair – Arcadia – El Monte via Arrow Highway, enters Downtown via Arrow Highway, turns on Bonita Avenue, and continues throughout the DTSP area beyond San Dimas towards La Verne. Route 492 operates 7 days a week from 4:53 AM to 10:32 PM on weekdays and 6:33 AM to 9:58 PM on weekends at the Bonita Avenue/San Dimas Avenue stop specifically. There are 40 westbound weekday buses and 35 eastbound weekday buses with approximately 20 to 30-minute headways. There are 28 weekend buses in each direction with approximate 30 to 40-minute headways. Route 492 has stops on either side of the street in the DTSP area. These stops are typically operational. Bus stop locations for Route 492 are listed below:
• Bonita Avenue adjacent to Arrow Highway (westbound only) • Bonita Avenue adjacent to Eucla Avenue
• Bonita Avenue adjacent to Cataract Avenue
• Bonita Avenue adjacent to San Dimas Avenue
• Bonita Avenue adjacent to Walnut Avenue
Ridership at each stop in the study area between July 1, 2021 and October 31, 2021 is provided in Table

4.11-1: Existing Foothills Transit Ridership in Downtown San Dimas.

Table 4.11-1: Existing Foothills Transit Ridership in Downtown San Dimas Route Stop Boarding Alighting
492 West 850-Bonita Ave/Arrow Hwy 759 620

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-5 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Table 4.11-1: Existing Foothills Transit Ridership in Downtown San Dimas Route Stop Boarding Alighting
492 West 866-Bonita Ave/Eucla Ave 937 730
492 East 865-Bonita Ave/Eucla Ave 1,105 1,787
492 West 860-Bonita Ave/Cataract Ave 70 101
492 East 859-Bonita Ave/Cataract Ave 4 11
492 West 876-Bonita Ave/San Dimas Ave 1,108 1,049
492 East 875-Bonita Ave/San Dimas Ave 1,462 2,075
492 West 883-Bonita Ave/Walnut Ave 939 1,160
492 East 883-Bonita Ave/Walnut Ave 926 833

Source: Foothill Transit
Within the DTSP area, Route 492 experiences the highest ridership at Bonita Avenue and San Dimas Avenue, and the lowest at Bonita Avenue and Cataract Avenue. The Foothill Transit FY 2022 Business Plan indicates that ridership in 2021 dropped by 44 percent of pre-pandemic levels systemwide. This overall decrease in ridership is consistent with the decrease in ridership experienced by transit agencies nationally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) The Metro “A” Line currently links Union Station to the San Gabriel Valley, ending at the Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College Station in Azusa. Metro is planning to extend “A” Line service from Azusa east through Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair with the addition of six new stations. The San Dimas Station, currently under construction, is located just east of San Dimas Avenue utilizing the existing railway right-of-way between Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway.

The San Dimas Station will be a center platform station with an associated parking lot at the former Park and Ride Lot located west of San Dimas Avenue, north of Commercial Street, with walking, bicycling, bus and drop-off infrastructure and amenities. The rail corridor features three tracks, two of which will be utilized by the Metro “A” Line, and the third being the existing freight rail line. As part of the construction of the San Dimas Station, a new bridge will cross the intersection of Bonita Avenue and Cataract Avenue to minimize vehicular and rail traffic and conflicts. Planned related improvements include reconfiguring the existing intersection of Bonita Avenue and Cataract Avenue, realigning the street at-grade, and installing a new traffic signal. The freight railway that runs parallel to the Metro “A” Line will remain at

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-6 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
grade at the intersection of Bonita Avenue and Cataract Avenue. Due to the right of way and clearance required to construct the bridge, a new pedestrian underpass is also under construction at Monte Vista Avenue with other active transportation improvements.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The pedestrian network in San Dimas is primarily composed of recreational trails and sidewalks. Table

4.11-2: Downtown San Dimas Existing Sidewalk Widths provides data on existing sidewalk widths in the DTSP area.

Table 4.11-2: Downtown San Dimas Existing Sidewalk Widths Street Side of Street Sidewalk Width
Arrow Highway
East 6 feet
West 6 feet
Bonita Avenue
(Cataract Avenue – San Dimas Avenue)
North 16-24 feet
South 16-32 feet
Bonita Avenue
(Walnut Avenue – Iglesia Avenue)
North 11 feet
South 8 feet
San Dimas Avenue
(South of Bonita Avenue)
East n/a
West 8-10 feet
Source: DTSP.

Four categories of bikeways are specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Sections 885.1 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. These categories are:
• Class I (Bike Path) - Provides a completely separate right of way bike facility for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Class II (Bike Lane) - Provides a striped bike lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III (Bike Route) - Provides a signed, shared roadway that allows for shared use between bicyclists and pedestrians or motorists. Typically, bike routes are placed on lower volume roadways. • Class IV (Protected/Separated Bikeway or Cycle Track) - A bikeway that is vertically physically separated from vehicle traffic. Protection and separation from traffic can be provided through grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on street parking.

San Dimas has approximately 13 miles of existing bikeways along roadways. Within the DTSP, Class III Bike Routes are located along Bonita Avenue, Arrow Highway, San Dimas Avenue, Cataract Avenue, and Walnut Avenue.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-7 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Regulatory Framework
State of California
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline the review under CEQA for several categories of development projects including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas and to balance the needs of congestion management with Statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

SB 743 added Section 21099 to the CEQA statute. Section 21099(d)(1) provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. SB 743 has also led to a change in the metrics for determining impacts resulting from traffic. Formerly, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments. As a result of SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis will shift from driver delay to reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

State Bill 743 started a process intended to fundamentally change how transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of the CEQA review of projects. SB 743 eliminated LOS as the basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA and required the use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead. The State is shifting the focus of CEQA traffic analysis from measuring a project’s impact on automobile delay, Level of Service (LOS), to measuring the amount and distance of automobile travel that is attributable to a project, VMT. The State’s goal for changing the metric used to determine a significant transportation impact is to encourage land use and transportation decisions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through active transportation.

Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Capand-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-8 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach GHG emissions goals by directing the California Air Resources Board to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations.

Assembly Bill 1358
Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, and the Complete Streets Act of 2008 require that cities and counties identify how they will provide for the routine accommodation of all users of roadways, including motorists, passengers, bicyclists, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and users of public transportation. Planning and building complete streets are one way that cities and counties can meet this requirement. A complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe access for all roadway users. Passengers, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street.

Southern California Association of Governments
2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Every four years, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) updates its RTP for the 191-city SCAG region. In September 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan for the region’s transportation system over the next 25 years that balances mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS includes over 4,000 transportation projects ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade-separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs, and replacement bridges to reduce bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network and expand the mobility choices for everyone in the six-county southern California region.

The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS groups its goals into four core categories—economy, mobility, environment, and healthy/complete communities. The plan explicitly addresses goals associated with housing, transportation technologies, equity and resilience reflecting enhanced importance of these topics in the region linking them to potential performance measures and targets.

The following ten goals are identified in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS:

1. Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-9 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.

3. Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system.

4. Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system.

5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

6. Support healthy and equitable communities.

7. Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network.

8. Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel.

9. Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options.

10. Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.

City of San Dimas
General Plan Circulation Element
The Circulation Element addresses the circulation of people, goods, and resources. The Circulation Element supports the goals, objectives, and policies of the Land Use Element; while the Land Use Element is a reflection of a community's circulation system and the planning proposals for that system.

Goals, objectives, and policies applicable to transportation are identified below:

Goal C-1: To provide a street network to move people and goods safely and effectively throughout the City of San Dimas.

Objective 1.1: Maintain a minimum Level of Service C at all intersections during nonpeak hours and Level of Service D (volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or less) at all intersections during peak hours to ensure that traffic delays are kept to a minimum.

Policy 1.1.2: The City shall require new developments to be served by roads of adequate capacity and design standards to provide reasonable access.

Objective 1.2: Establish adequate measures to ensure traffic safety.

Policy 1.2.2: The City shall require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed to minimize conflicting traffic

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-10 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
movements such as turning, curb parking, uncontrolled access, and frequent stops.

Policy 1.2.3: The City shall require that pedestrian and vehicular traffic is separated to the maximum feasible extent.

Goal C-2: To promote a public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the needs of the City of San Dimas.

Objective 2.1: Require dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of public transportation systems noted in the regional mobility plan.

Policy 2.1.1: The City shall work with the transportation agencies to designate commuter rail stations within the City of San Dimas.

Goal C-3: To promote safe alternatives to motorized transportation that meets the needs of all City residents.

Objective 3.1: Provide a circulation network that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of cyclists.

Policy 3.1.1: The City shall create a system of bicycle routes within the street right-of-way to meet the needs of both the local and commuter cyclist. The routes shall be designated for the safety of cyclists.

Objective 3.2: Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways in residential/commercial areas that provides a safe environment for pedestrians.

Policy 3.2.1: Where possible future developments shall contain an internal system of trails linking schools, shopping centers, and other public facilities with residences.

Policy 3.2.2: The City shall promote the design and location of future land uses to encourage access by non-automotive means.

Goal C-4: To provide an adequate supply of private off-street and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City.

Objective 4.1: Provide joint-use and public parking facilities where needed by special assessment districts or other mechanisms.

Policy 4.1.1: The City shall enforce its parking ordinance and standard requirements such as necessary design features, the number of

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-11 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
required handicapped parking spaces, etc. in conjunction with the parking ordinance.

Goal C-5: To manage peak hour traffic flow and change demand on the circulation system to reduce traffic congestion where necessary and feasible.

Objective 5.1: Provide for the development and monitoring of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs at locations where trip making is concentrated.

Policy 5.1.2: The City shall encourage public support for the development of a balanced circulation system through a well organized public relations program.

Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan is based on a series of goals, objectives, and policies which indicate the purpose served by planning in San Dimas. Goals and objectives applicable to transportation are identified below:

Goal L-4: Plan and create an urban form that efficiently utilizes urban infrastructure and services. Plan for orderly growth rather than “leap frog” development.

Objective 4.2: Consider each development proposal in a larger development context.

Understand how each development contributes to city-wide impacts and contributes to certain capacity thresholds for circulation, community services and utilities.

Goal L-4: Provide well planned commercial centers and nodes. Discourage “strip” commercial development.

Objective 5.1: Encourage infill and development to occur in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing revitalization and redevelopment.

Safety Element
Goal S-2: Provide effective and efficient public safety services including fire and police protection and emergency services.

Objective 1.4: Provide effective and efficient fire and protection services.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-12 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Goal 1.4.2 Ensure that existing and new development is served by adequate response times for police, fire, and paramedic services.

Transportation Study Guidelines
The City of San Dimas Transportation Study Guidelines1 describe transportation analysis requirements for projects within the City of San Dimas. Guidelines are provided for evaluating a project’s environmental transportation impacts and effects on the local transportation system City in conformance with all applicable City and State regulations. These guidelines address the requirements for the analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In addition, these guidelines also address the requirements for Level of Service (LOS) analysis for intersections and roadways that apply to discretionary approval of new individual land use (i.e., development) and transportation projects.

A Transportation Study for a proposed development project is required to include a VMT assessment that explains either why the project screens out or provides a full VMT impact analysis. A proposed project may screen out of full VMT analysis if the project meets one or more of the identified project screening criteria.

These criteria consider whether a proposed project is located in a Transit Priority Area or an area identified as having low VMT characteristics or if the project will generate a small number of trips.

4.11.4 METHODOLOGY
The DTSP is a planning document to guide development in the proposed Specific Plan Area; no specific individual development projects are proposed at this time. Therefore, the following discusses the potential transportation impacts that could result from implementation of the DTSP.

Pursuant to Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, traffic delay resulting from a land use project shall not constitute a significant environmental impact for purposes of CEQA. Accordingly, the potential effect of the proposed DTSP on the LOS of intersections is not addressed.

Analysis of the potential effects of the proposed DTSP on VMT was assessed using the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model.2 The proposed DTSP is located within four Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) in this model. As Downtown San Dimas is planning to transform into a transit-oriented area in conjunction with the “A” Line extension; sampling trips from these four TAZs would not be appropriate as the 2045 projection do not reflect the type and intensity of development that would be facilitated by the proposed DTSP. For this reason, TAZs within a half-mile radius of transit stations with similar land use characteristics 1 City of San Dimas. Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, May 2021. 2 IBI Group, DTSP VMT Analysis, July 31, 2023.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-13 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
to those proposed in San Dimas with the DTSP were sampled for trips, including the areas around the Arcadia, Monrovia, and Allen light rail stations.

For the projected increase in residents living in the DTSP Area, a trip rate was calculated for residents living in zones within a half-mile of these transit stations which was applied to residents residing in the DTSP for each of the four TAZs. This produces a trip target for each of the four zones which is the number of trips sampled from the zones around these transit stations.

Non-residents of the DTSP area will also be making trips to the DTSP for work and/or discretionary purposes like shopping. With regard to employment, the rate reflects residents who live and work within the same TAZ. This rate was applied to projected employment in the DTSP; the remaining employment serves as a trip target for non-resident work trips to and from the DTSP. For non-resident discretionary trips, a non-resident discretionary trip rate was determined based on the existing transit stations and applied to the total projected population and employment for the proposed DTSP.

To estimate VMT for 2045, the VMT of each trip made with a vehicle and coming from and going to the four TAZs containing the DTSP area were combined by zone using the SCAG model outputs. VMT for 2045 without the DTSP (Base Scenario) and with the DTSP includes the VMT of the new trips being generated to and from the four zones due to the DTSP.

4.11.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Project Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Transit Facilities
The DTSP would not result in a disruption of existing transit service. Transit service in San Dimas and the Downtown area is primarily operated by Foothill Transit. While there currently is no Metro Rail service to San Dimas, Metro is planning to extend Metro Rail “A” Line service through the DTSP area. The San Dimas Metro “A” Line station would be located just east of San Dimas Avenue utilizing the existing railway rightof-way between Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway.

The proposed DTSP identifies improvements to the Foothill Transit Bus Stops located at the intersections of Bonita Avenue and San Dimas Avenue and Bonita Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The transit services within the DTSP area and transit stop improvements are identified in Figure 4.11-1: Proposed Transit Improvements. The DTSP would locate more residents near transit facilities, which would increase facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-14 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
The DTSP includes specific strategies, including Strategy 5 to support transit-oriented land use development, which includes increasing the diversity of land uses in the downtown area. Strategy 5 would support transit use by investing in first/last mile-supportive pedestrian, bicycle, and parking improvements and land use planning efforts. These improvements would increase transit accessibility and ridership within the DTSP area when coupled with increasing the diversity of land uses by providing greater access to Metro Rail “A” Line San Dimas Station and Foothill Transit Bus Stops.

The proposed Project would not conflict with the San Dimas General Plan policies regarding transit access and would not conflict with RTP/SCS policies regarding transit access and reliability. The proposed Project would not conflict with the San Dimas General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-2, Policy 2.1, and is consistent with RTP/SCS Goals 2, 3, 4, and 9. The proposed Project would support transit use and facilities by providing transit stop improvements, first/last mile-supportive improvements, and increasing the diversity of land uses in the downtown area, centered around the San Dimas Metro “A” Line station. As such, the proposed Project improves mobility access and safety, increases travel choices, and encourages development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options.

Therefore, the DTSP would not conflict with any adopted plan, ordinance or policy related to transit.

Roadway Facilities
Roadway improvements proposed in the DTSP are intended to transform the existing auto-oriented streetscape into a more sustainable, multimodal design. Implementation of the DTSP would include roadway improvements to facilitate multimodal connections, including for vehicles, transit, bikes, and pedestrians. No proposed changes to the existing street network are proposed that would limit or reduce vehicular or roadway access upon implementation of the DTSP. Ongoing roadway improvements related to the Metro “A” Line Extension include reconstructing the existing intersection at Bonita Avenue and Cataract Avenue, realigning the street at-grade, and installing a new traffic signal.

The proposed Project would not conflict with the San Dimas General Plan policies regarding roadways. The proposed Project would not conflict with San Dimas General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-1, Policy 1.1.2 as the proposed Project would not alter the street network or result in inadequate roadway capacity for new development. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Circulation Element Goal C-1, Policy

1.2.2 as the proposed Project’s proposed improvements would be designed to minimize conflicting traffic movements. The proposed Project is consistent with the adopted plans regarding roadway facilities and would not decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the DTSP would not conflict with adopted plan, ordinance or policy related to roadway facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Transit Improvements
FIGURE 4.11-1
343-001-21
SOURCE: DTSP Draft_Chapter 6 - 2023
N

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-16 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bikeways within Downtown San Dimas include Class III bike routes along several corridors including Bonita Avenue, Arrow Highway, San Dimas Avenue, Cataract Avenue, and Walnut Avenue. The planned Metro “A” Line extension will be a significant attractor to regional traffic. With the extension will come travelers needing to make first/last mile connections, or travelers trying to connect to bikeways either in San Dimas or in a neighboring city. This provides an opportunity for San Dimas to prepare for this sudden onset of bicyclist traffic and prepare a safe, efficient, and connected bikeway network.

Implementation of the DTSP would include bicycle improvements to facilitate multimodal connections, including for vehicles, transit, bikes, and pedestrians. The DTSP includes specific strategies (Strategy 1, Strategy 2, and Strategy 3) that call for providing convenient access and circulation for all modes of transportation and enhancing bicycle facilities in the DTSP area. Bicycle facilities improvements proposed by the DTSP are identified in Figure 4.11-2: Proposed DTSP Bicycle Facilities Improvements. The proposed improvements to bicycle facilities contained within the DTSP include corridor and spot improvements. The proposed corridor improvements are listed in Table 4.11-3: Proposed DTSP Bicycle Facilities Corridor Improvements, below.

The proposed bicycle facility improvements within the DTSP include adding bike parking and bicycle friendly intersections as identified in Figure 4.11-2. Bicycle friendly intersections are proposed for the intersections of Bonita Avenue and Arrow Highway, Bonita Avenue and Eucla Avenue, Bonita Avenue and San Dimas Avenue, and Bonita Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Bicycle friendly intersections will provide an added layer of protection for bicyclists and improve bicyclist visibility to motorists at intersections.

Treatments that would provide the greatest safety benefits at bicycle friendly intersections within the DTSP study area include bike boxes, two-stage left turn lanes, and green transition lanes. Bike parking is proposed near the intersection of Bonita Avenue and Walnut Avenue, and at the “A” Line San Dimas Station parking facility.

The Project is consistent with adopted plans and policies related to bicycle facilities and would not decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to active transportation facilities and would not conflict with adopted plans and policies related to bicycle facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-17 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Table 4.11-3: Proposed DTSP Bicycle Facilities Corridor Improvements Street Corridor Segment Segment Improvements
Bonita Avenue
Arrow Highway – Cataract Avenue Class IV Bikeway
Cataract Avenue – Walnut Avenue Class III Bike Boulevard Walnut Avenue – San Dimas Canyon
Road Class II Bikeway
San Dimas Avenue Arrow Highway – northern DTSP
boundary
• North of railroad tracks:

Class II bikeway in
northbound direction
• South of railroad tracks:

Class II buffered bikeway
Eucla Avenue Arrow Highway – Bonita Avenue Class III Bikeway Acacia Street Arrow Highway – Bonita Avenue Class III Bikeway Commercial Street Cataract Avenue – San Dimas Avenue Class III Bikeway Cataract Avenue /
Covina Avenue Arrow Highway – Bonita Avenue Class III Bikeway Monte Vista Avenue
3rd Street – Bonita Avenue Class III Bike Boulevard
Railway – Commercial Street Class III Bike Boulevard
Iglesia Street /
First Street
3rd Street – Bonita Avenue Class III Bike Boulevard
Walnut Avenue Arrow Highway – Bonita Avenue Class III Bike Boulevard Source: DTSP.

Pedestrian Facilities
The DTSP identifies proposed improvements to the pedestrian facilities within the DTSP area. The DTSP includes specific strategies (Strategy 1, Strategy 2, and Strategy 3) that call for providing convenient access and circulation for all modes of transportation and enhancing pedestrian facilities in the DTSP area. The proposed improvements are identified in Figure 4.11-3: Proposed DTSP Pedestrian Facilities Improvements. These consist of curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and improved wayfinding.

Throughout the DTSP area, proposed pedestrian spot improvements would primarily occur at intersections. These spot improvements are identified in Table 4.11-4: Proposed DTSP Pedestrian Facilities Spot Improvements, below.

Figure 6.6-1: Proposed Bike Improvements
Proposed DTSP Bicycle Facilities Improvements
FIGURE 4.11-2
343-001-21
SOURCE: DTSP Draft_Chapter 6 - 2023
N

Proposed DTSP Pedestrian Facilities Improvements
FIGURE 4.11-3
343-001-21
SOURCE: DTSP Draft_Chapter 6 - 2023
N

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-20 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Table 4.11-4: Proposed DTSP Pedestrian Facilities Spot Improvements Intersection Spot Improvements
2nd Street / Eucla Avenue Curb Extension
2nd Street / Cataract Avenue Curb Extension
1st Street / Monte Vista Avenue Curb Extension
1st Street / San Dimas Avenue Curb Extension
Bonita Avenue / Arrow Highway • Improved Wayfinding
• High Visibility Crosswalk
Bonita Avenue / Monte Vista Avenue • Improved Wayfinding • High Visibility Crosswalk
Bonita Avenue / San Dimas Avenue Improved Wayfinding
Bonita Avenue / Walnut Avenue Improved Wayfinding
Arrow Highway / Eucla Avenue High Visibility Crosswalk
Arrow Highway /Cataract Avenue High Visibility Crosswalk Arrow Highway / San Dimas Avenue • Improved Wayfinding
• High Visibility Crosswalk
Arrow Highway / Walnut Avenue High Visibility Crosswalk Source: DTSP.

The Project is consistent with the adopted plans regarding pedestrian facilities and would not decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the DTSP would not conflict with any plan, ordinance or policy related to pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The DTSP would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities such that substantial physical environmental effects would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The proposed DTSP would change the zoning in the Specific Plan Area and facilitate population and employment. While people residing in the DTSP Area would live in proximity to other land uses, such as retail and office, it is reasonable to assume some residents would use vehicles to travel to destinations outside of the plan area. Accordingly, the development envisioned in the DTSP would affect VMT.

Using the methodology described above in Section 4.11.3 Methodology, the VMT result from the DTSP is included in Table 4.11-5: DTSP Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis, below. Table 4.11-5 presents the

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-21 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
total projected population and employment in the four TAZs that contain the DTSP Area, the total VMT, and total VMT per capita for two scenarios: ‘2045 Base’ (without the proposed DTSP) and ‘2045 Base with DTSP’ by TAZ. The 2045 Base Scenario refers to the 2045 horizon year scenario with planned infrastructure changes identified by the SCAG modeling team. The ‘2045 Base with DTSP’ scenario is the same as the ‘2045 Base’ scenario, but also includes the projected growth in the DTSP Area. No major roadway network changes are assumed in the 2045 Base with DTSP Scenario.

The four TAZs containing the DTSP Area are shown in Figure 4.11-4: DTSP Transportation Analysis Zones.

The DTSP does not cover the entirety of these four TAZs. Outside of the DTSP area, the 2045 population and employment within each of the four zones was not modified. Within the DTSP area, the 2045 population and employment targets were adjusted to reflect the projected Population and Employment.

The total VMT for each TAZ consists of all trips starting and ending at the corresponding TAZ. Trips that start and end within the same TAZ were only counted once. To determine VMT for the 2045 Base scenario, the VMT of each trip made with a vehicle coming from and going to the four TAZs are combined by zone using the SCAG model outputs. VMT for the 2045 Base scenario with DTSP includes the VMT of the new trips being generated to and from the four zones due to the DTSP. The total VMT per capita is the total VMT over the total population and employment.

As shown in Table 4.11-5 implementation of the DTSP would reduce the total VMT per capita in the 2045 Base with DTSP Scenario when compared to the 2045 Base Scenario. The trips sampled at other nearby light rail stations, as discussed above, reflect more sustainable travel modes such as transit and active transportation to make trips in lieu of vehicles. Mode share for vehicle based trips in the 2045 Base is 66 percent compared to 57 percent for trips made to and from the DTSP in the 2045 Base with DTSP scenario.

Table 4.11-5: DTSP Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis TAZ
Population + Employment Total VMT Total VMT per Capita
2045 Base 2045 Base
with DTSP 2045 Base 2045 Base with DTSP 2045 Base 2045 Base with DTSP 22410100 3,082 4,015 86,773 111,554 28.2 27.8
22410200 2,999 4,348 94,375 127,049 31.5 29.2
22410300 5,100 8,623 152,760 237,097 30 27.5
22415200 5,296 7,624 162,255 215,695 30.6 28.3

Source: Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis, IBI Group, July 31, 2023.

DTSP Transportation Analysis Zones
FIGURE 4.11-4
343-001-21
SOURCE: DTSP Draft_Chapter 6 - 2023
N

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-23 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
As implementation of the DTSP would reduce the total VMT per capita in the 2045 Base with DTSP Scenario when compared to the 2045 Base, the development envisioned in the DTSP would not result in significant VMT impacts. Therefore, the DTSP would have a less than significant impact related to VMT and would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Implementation of the DTSP would include improvements to facilitate multimodal connections and safety improvements for vehicles, transit, bikes, and pedestrians. The proposed DTSP identifies improvements to the Foothill Transit Bus Stops located at the intersections of Bonita Avenue and San Dimas Avenue and Bonita Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The transit services within the DTSP area and transit stop improvements are identified in Figure 4.11-1. Proposed bicycle facility improvements within the DTSP include improving existing bikeways, adding new bikeways, and adding bike parking and bicycle friendly intersections, as shown in Figure 4.11-2. Proposed improvements to pedestrian facilities contained within the DTSP include corridor and spot improvements consisting of pedestrian scale lighting, street trees, curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, and improved wayfinding, as shown in Figure 4.11-3.

Development facilitated by the implementation of the DTSP would consist primarily of infill development or redevelopment. These individual future development projects would either utilize existing driveways to provide site access or also include construction of new driveways. The DTSP would not significantly alter roadways or traffic patterns within the DTSP area. Plans for individual development projects would be subject to review by the City of San Dimas and the County of Los Angeles Fire Department priorto issuance of building permits. This would ensure that individual projects facilitated by the DTSP would not introduce sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The DTSP would facilitate residential, commercial, and industrial development, uses that already exist within the downtown area. As such, the DTSP would not introduce incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Development facilitated by the DTSP would be required to comply with the City’s standards for emergency vehicle access, such as providing adequate points of access, vertical clearances, and turning radii. Should development projects facilitated by the DTSP require a temporary lane closure during construction, clear signage would be provided to ensure vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists are able to adequately reach their intended destinations safely. Future development projects would be required to provide the City with a detailed plan demonstrating emergency accessibility. Future development project plans facilitated by the implementation of the DTSP would also be subject to review by the City of San Dimas and County of Los Angeles Fire Department to ensure that adequate emergency access would be available prior to issuance

4.11 Transportation
City of San Dimas 4.11-24 Meridian Consultants
Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
of building permits. Therefore, implementation of the DTSP would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
According to OPR, “A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.”3 As the proposed DTSP would reduce VMT per capita, it would not contribute to cumulative transportation impacts.

4.11.6 MITIGATION
The Project would not result in any significant transportation impacts and no mitigation is required. 3 OPR, https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

City of San Dimas 4.12-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

4.12 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to tribal cultural resources are derived from the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

4.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
As stated in the Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan, “There is evidence that the Gabrielino Indians…inhabited the San Dimas area.” 1 The Gabrielino Indians settled in the area around 500 B.C. and occupied the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, the Los Angeles Basin, the coast from Aliso Creek in the south to Topanga Creek in the north, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina.

Regulatory Framework
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. The act amended California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.94, and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. The primary intent of AB 52 is to involve California Native American Tribes early in the environmental review process and to establish a category of resources related to Native Americans, known as tribal cultural resources, that require consideration under CEQA. PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred 1 City of San Dimas, General Plan Conservation Element, Page VI-16

4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Dimas 4.12-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is determined to be a tribal cultural resource by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. A tribal cultural resource is further defined by PRC Section 20174(b) as a cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. PRC Section 20174(c) provides that a historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

PRC Section 21080.3.1 requires that the lead agency provide formal notification to the designated contact, or a tribal representative, of California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project (as defined in PRC Section 21073) and who have requested in writing to be informed by the lead agency of projects within their geographic area of concern.2 Tribes interested in consultation must respond in writing within 30 days from receipt of the lead agency’s formal notification and the lead agency must begin consultation within 30 days of receiving the Tribe’s request for consultation.3

PRC Section 21080.3.2(a) identifies the following as potential consultation discussion topics: the type of environmental review necessary; the significance of tribal cultural resources; the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources; project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation; and mitigation measures. Consultation is considered concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.4
In addition to other CEQA provisions, the lead agency may certify an EIR or adopt a MND for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, only if a California Native American Tribe has requested consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, or requested a consultation but failed to engage in the consultation process, or the consultation process occurred and was concluded as described above, or if the California Native American Tribe did not request consultation within 30 days.5
2 Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.1(b) and (c).
3 Public Resources Code, Sections 21080.3.1(d) and 21080.3.1(e) 4 Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.2(b)
5 Public Resources Code, Section 21082.3(d)(2) and (3)

4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Dimas 4.12-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1) states that any information, including, but not limited to, the location, description, and use of the tribal cultural resources, that is submitted by a California Native American Tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public without the prior consent of the Tribe that provided the information. If the lead agency publishes any information submitted by a California Native American Tribe during the consultation or environmental review process, that information shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the Tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.

Confidentiality does not apply to data or information that are, or become publicly available, are already in lawful possession of the project applicant before the provision of the information by the California Native American Tribe, are independently developed by the Applicant or the Applicant’s agents, or are lawfully obtained by the Project applicant from a third party that is not the lead agency, a California Native American Tribe, or another public agency.6
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, as amended by AB 2641, provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. Once the MLD has been granted access to the site by the landowner and inspected the discovery, the MLD then has 48 hours to provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods. In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.

PRC Section 5097.99 prohibits acquisition or possession of Native American artifacts or human remains taken from a Native American grave or cairn after January 1, 1984, except in accordance with an agreement reached with the NAHC.
6 Public Resources Code, Section 21082.3(c)(2)(B).

4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Dimas 4.12-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
PRC Section 5097.5 provides protection for tribal resources on public lands, where Section 5097.5(a) states, in part, that:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.

4.12.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Project Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) There are no tribal cultural resources listed or known to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources within the Project area. As such, there would be no impacts under this threshold.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

The Project would allow new development within the plan area, but approval of individual development projects is not proposed at this time. The Project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Municipal Code Text Amendments and Specific Plan; therefore, the requirements for consultation with Native American Tribes in the Public Resource Code apply. In accordance with these requirements, the City sent notices of the opportunity to consult on this Project to Native American Tribes that have previously requested notification from the City of proposed projects within the City and Native American Tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. A response was received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation stating the Kizh Nation concurred with the proposed Specific Plan and requesting consultation for all future projects within the plan area. This response did not

4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Dimas 4.12-5 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
identify specific tribal cultural resources within the Project area and the Kizh Nation did not request consultation on the Specific Plan project.

No known tribal cultural resources are present within the plan area. The cultural history of the area is such that subsurface tribal cultural artifacts may be present within the Project area. As a plan proposed to implement the City’s General Plan, the Specific Plan does not include the approval of any specific individual development projects. For this reason, the Project would not involve ground disturbing activities that could directly or indirectly impact tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan would be less than significant. As required by Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.1, for all individual development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area, the City will consult with any California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area that requests consultation on individual development projects proposed within the Specific Plan Area.

Cumulative Impact
Cumulative impacts could occur through widespread adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. No known tribal cultural resources are present within the plan area and none have been identified by Native American Tribes notified by the City of this proposed Project. For these reasons, implementation of the Project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources.

4.12.4 MITIGATION
The Project would not result in any significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and no mitigation is required.

City of San Dimas 4.13-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

4.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Project (“Downtown Specific Plan”, “DTSP”, or “Project”) on utilities and service systems serving the DTSP area. The information provided in this section is based on the City’s General Plan, General Plan EIR, and the proposed DTSP.

4.13.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to utilities and service systems are derived from the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Statutes and Guidelines.
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

4.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Conditions
The San Dimas Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area is generally bounded by State Route 57 freeway to the west, Second Street to the north, San Dimas Canyon Road to the east, and Arrow Highway to the south.

The DTSP area encompasses approximately 202 acres that have been previously developed and served by existing utility systems.

Utility services provided in the DTSP area include Golden State Water Company (GSWC) for water, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) through their Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD) for wastewater collection and transport, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) for wastewater collection and treatment, Waste Management for solid waste disposal, Southern

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
California Edison (SCE) for electricity, the Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company) for natural gas, and Spectrum Charter Communications, Frontier Communications, and various wireless carriers for telecommunication services.

The DTSP area is located within Golden State Water Company’s San Dimas District with potable water supplied from two storage reservoirs located on the south side of Gladstone Street, east of Amelia Avenue and are located less than 2,000 feet north of the DTSP area. The capacity of these reservoirs can be expanded by increasing the volume of storage and flow rates by increasing the pump sizes.

GSWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for San Dimas demonstrates the reliability of water supplies to meet projected annual water demands for the San Dimas System during a normal, single dry year, and multiple dry years through 2045.1
Two sanitary systems exist within the DTSP area: local collection lines and trunk sewers. All local sewer lines are owned by the City of San Dimas and operated/maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) through their Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD). The trunk line sewers are operated/maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). The DTSP area has one sanitary sewer lift station, located in the Northwest portion of the DTSP area, and two trunk sewers.

The northern trunk sewer main starts north of the DTSP area on Juanita Avenue and continues on Third Street before heading south on North Acacia Avenue into the DTSP area. It then heads west through the Bonita Avenue line out of the DTSP area. The other trunk sewer which services the area starts at the intersection of Bonita Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The trunk sewer flows south along Walnut Avenue until it connects with Arrow Highway, where the sewer connects with another trunk sewer on the southern edge of the DTSP area. The trunk sewers are between 15” and 24” within the DTSP area.

Stormwater is managed by a combination of City of San Dimas and Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) drainage systems that drain stormwater to Walnut Creek.

The City of San Dimas contracts with Waste Management for curbside and business trash collection and recycling.2 The Azusa Material Recycling Facility (MRF) & Transfer Station is the nearest regional disposal facility operated by Waste Management, which receives solid waste from the Los Angeles Metro area and Eastern Los Angeles County.
1 Golden State Water Company San Dimas System, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Chapter 7: Water Service Reliability and Drought Rish Assessment,
chttps://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F9623822867%2FFINAL%20GSWC- %20San%20Dimas%202020%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed August 2023. 2 City of San Dimas Waste Disposal and Recycling,
https://sandimasca.gov/residents/resident_services/waste_disposal_and_recycling.php. Accessed August 2023.

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Regulatory Framework
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a program created to implement the Clean Water Act (CWA). In response to the 1987 amendments to the CWA and as part of Phase I of its NPDES permit program, the USEPA began requiring NPDES permits for (1) municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally serving or located in incorporated cities with 100,000 or more people (referred to as municipal permits); (2) 11 specific categories of industrial activity (including landfills); and (3) construction activity that disturbs 5 acres or more of land. Phase II of the USEPA’s NPDES permit program, which went into effect in early 2003, extended the requirements for NPDES permits to (1) numerous small MS4s; (2) construction sites of 1 to 5 acres; and (3) industrial facilities owned or operated by small MS4s.

In 2009, the USEPA published effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for the construction and development industry that became effective in 2010. The NPDES permit program is typically administered by individual authorized states. The USEPA has delegated management of California’s NPDES program to the State Water Resources Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality control board (RWQCB) offices that grant permits to regulate point-source discharges of industrial and municipal wastewater into the waters of the United States.

Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits The City is a co-permittee under the NPDES stormwater permit covering Los Angeles County (Order No.

R4-2021-0105 NPDES No. CAS004004). The LARWQCB completed revisions of the NPDES permit for the Los Angeles region in 1996 and 2001. The MS4 Permit requires permittees to reduce the discharge of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and ensure MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. The MS4 Permit also requires implementation of various site design best management practices (BMPs) and treatment control BMPs to reduce the possibility of pollutants from entering surface water or sewer system.

California Urban Water Management Plan Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610–10656) addresses several State policies regarding water conservation and the development of water management plans to ensure the efficient use of available supplies. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires Urban Water Suppliers that serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 acre-feet per year (afy), to develop Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) every five years to identify short-term and long-term demand management measures to meet growing water demands during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Golden State Water has prepared and adopted UWMPs for its San Dimas service area.

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 established requirements in the State Water Code for Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) for projects subject to CEQA, which meet specific size criteria. The WSA is used to document that the water supplier has sufficient water resources to serve the projected water demand associated with a proposed Project.

Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act
Integrated regional water management plans (IRWMPs) foster regional water management. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts has prepared Integrated Regional Water Management Plans to develop a vision and direction for the sustainable management of its local water resources, including wastewater treatment and recycled water.

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as well as subsequent amendments, improved solid waste disposal management with respect to (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. The Act mandated jurisdictions meet diversion goals and required counties to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management program with annual status reports.

Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act, each County is required to prepare and administer a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (ColWMP), including preparation of an Annual Report. The County continually evaluates landfill disposal needs and capacity as part of the preparation of the CoIWMP Annual Report. Within each annual report, future landfill disposal needs over the next 15-year planning horizon are addressed in part by determining the available landfill capacity.

California Code of Regulations, Title 20
Title 20, Sections 1605.1(h) and 1605.1(i) of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) establish efficiency standards for all new federally regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including such fixtures as showerheads, lavatory faucets, and water closets.

California Green Building Standards Code
Title 24, Part 11, regulates the design and construction of buildings and establishes the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. The purpose of CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-5 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code includes both mandatory measures and voluntary measures that address water consumption, building system efficiencies, construction waste, and low pollutant-emitting finish materials. The mandatory measures establish minimum baselines that must be met in order for a building to be approved. The voluntary measures can be adopted by local jurisdictions for greater efficiency.

City of San Dimas Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance Chapter 14.13 of the City of San Dimas Municipal Code (LID Ordinance) regulates stormwater runoff for the protection of waterways and sensitive areas in the City of San Dimas. Applicable new development projects and redevelopment projects must control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume by retaining the Stormwater Quality Design Volume3 on site through minimizing impervious surface area and controlling the runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and use. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to accomplish the following objectives:

A. Lessen the water quality impacts of development by using smart growth practices such as compact development, directing development towards existing communities via infill or redevelopment, and safeguarding of environmentally sensitive areas.

B. Minimize the adverse impacts from stormwater runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and the beneficial uses of waterbodies.

C. Minimize the percentage of impervious surfaces on land developments by minimizing soil compaction during construction, designing projects to minimize the impervious area footprint, and employing low impact development (LID) design principles to mimic predevelopment hydrology through infiltration, evapotranspiration and rainfall harvest and use.

D. Maintain existing riparian buffers and enhance riparian buffers when possible.

E. Minimize pollutant loadings from impervious surfaces such as roof tops, parking lots, and roadways through the use of properly designed, technically appropriate best management practices (BMPs), (including source control BMPs such as good housekeeping practices), LID strategies, and treatment control BMPs.

F. Properly select, design and maintain LID and hydromodification control BMPs to address pollutants that are likely to be generated, reduce changes to pre-development hydrology, assure long-term function, and avoid the breeding of vectors.

G. Prioritize the selection of BMPs to remove stormwater pollutants, reduce stormwater runoff volume, 3 Stormwater Quality Design Volume means the runoff from:
a. The 0.75-inch, 24-hour rain event, or
b. The 85th percentile, 24-hour rain event as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map, whichever is greater.

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-6 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
and beneficially use stormwater to support an integrated approach to protecting water quality and managing water resources in the following order of preference:

1. On-site infiltration, bioretention and/or rainfall harvest and use.

2. On-site biofiltration, off-site ground water replenishment, and/or off-site retrofit. (Ord. 1231 § 1, 2014.)

4.13.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water
The DTSP area is served by GSWC through an existing water distribution system.

The DTSP is proposed to implement the City’s General Plan and is identified in the City’s 2021 - 2029 Housing Element as a program intended to support the City meeting its RHNA goal of providing 1,248 additional housing units in the City over this planning period. Due to the rezoning of sites that would occur within the DTSP, there is a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units, consistent with the City’s RHNA target. Additional growth could occur after 2029 based on the additional development capacity that would be created by the DTSP. The maximum capacity of the zoning that would be established by the DTSP is approximately 3,690 units. In addition, as presented in Table 2.0-2: Assumed Project Buildout, for purposes of analysis it is also estimated that the potential outcome of the Project could result in up to approximately 1,148,888 SF of Commercial land use, 313,085 SF of Office land use, 60,027 SF of Industrial land use, and 55,745 SF of Institutional land use. Though conceptual, this is considered a maximum development capacity used for analysis purposes.

Water demand estimates for the DTSP were calculated using the assumptions below:
• 300 gallons per day (gpd) per household
• 200 gpd per 1,000 square feet for commercial space
• 500 gpd per 1,000 square feet for industrial space

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-7 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
• 35 gpd per employee for institutions
• 2.5 Peak Factor
Using these water demand assumptions, the total water flow into the DTSP area would increase from an average of 0.63 million gallons per day (MGD) with the existing land uses, to 1.38 MGD in 2045 based on projected growth. Additionally, the proposed land use changes would generate a peak flow increase from

1.58 MGD to 3.45 MGD, which is equal to an increase of peaks from 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,400 gpm of instantaneous flow to the DTSP area.

The plan for the downtown area includes six area zones: Gateway Village West, Gateway Village East, Transit Village, Town Core, Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space. Each area was then broken down by acreage further for each zoning type: Residential, Commercial, Office, Industrial, and Institutional. As shown in Table 4-13.1: Project Water Demand is approximately 1,390,563 gallons per day in 2045.

According to the 2020 UWMP, GSWC’s annual water production for San Dimas ranged from 9,546 AF to 12,377 AF, with an average of approximately 11,593 AF. Due to conservation efforts and demand management measures, GSWC’s recent water demands have been less than its historical water demands, including during long-term droughts. GSWC’s projected water demands (during a normal year, a single dry year, and a five consecutive year drought) are anticipated to incorporate similar reductions in water use rates as a result of the shortage response actions, ongoing conservation efforts, and demand management measures. Because GSWC’s projected water demands are similar to its historical water demands, it is anticipated GSWC will be able to continue providing sufficient water supplies to meet projected water demands for San Dimas, including during long-term droughts.

The growth projected to result from the DTSP is within the expected growth projected in the 2020 UWMP, which is based on growth rates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) applied to the City’s 2020 population using the Department of Water Resources Population Tool. Using this methodology, the UWMP addresses the water demand associated with a population of approximately 54,000 in 2045 for the GSWC service area which serves customers in the City of San Dimas and portions of the Cities of La Verne, Walnut, and Covina, as well as adjacent unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County; with San Dimas comprising the majority of this service area. The proposed DTSP would create the potential for the development of up to approximately 3,600 additional residential units, with an associated population increase of approximately 10,000, which could increase the population of the City from the existing population of approximately 33,000 to 43,000. This population would be well within the projected population of 54,000 for the GSWC service area addressed in the UWMP and, for this reason, sufficient water supplies will be available to meet the demands associated with growth associated with the proposed

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-8 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
DTSP and no major water service infrastructure improvements would be required. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.13-1: Project Water Demand
District Land Use Estimates Water Demand (gpd) Peak Flow (gpm) Use Area (ac)
Gateway Village West
Residential 48.8
Commercial 27.9 772,402 1,341
Office 8.3
Gateway Village East
Residential 15
195,218 339
Commercial 2.7
Office 3.7
Institutional 3.7
Transit Village
Residential 19.7
315,322 547
Commercial 9.8
Office 5.9
Institutional 3.9
Town Core
Residential 4.5
Commercial 10.7 92,846 161
Office 2.7
Public/Semi-Public 29.0 14,775 26
Open Space 7.3
Total Demand (gpd) 1,390,563
Wastewater
Sewer service in the DTSP area will need to be expanded in order to accommodate projected development.

There are large sections of Transit Village and smaller sections of the East and West Gateway Villages that do not have many, or any, existing sewer lines. To accommodate the projected residential growth, service lines will need to be constructed to the trunk lines. All improvements would be reviewed by both the City of San Dimas and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. If flows are to increase significantly, a larger trunk line may need to be constructed, based on the location and intensity of new housing, mixed use development, or commercial businesses. Any construction to replace or enlarge existing sewer lines in the DTSP area would result in temporary construction impacts within existing streets in the area. As these impacts would be temporary, these impacts would not be significant. Sewer capacity studies will be required to determine if existing systems are sufficient for the proposed additional flows and/or to determine the appropriate sizing of any new sewer system.

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-9 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Stormwater
The DTSP area is currently developed and served by existing stormwater infrastructure. As development occurs over time within the DTSP area, pervious surfaces may be replaced with concrete, asphalt, and other impervious surfaces. All alterations of streets or increases in the amount of impervious surfaces that would result from new development in the DTSP area would be required to meet the existing design standards of Los Angeles County and the City of San Dimas as well as the RWQCB Los Angeles County MS4 Permit and the City’s LID ordinance, adopted to implement the MS4 Permit in San Dimas, discussed above.

This ordinance requires that stormwater be retained and treated, which reduces peak runoff volumes. The existing Open Space zone is expected to remain the same at 7.3 acres. This would maintain the pervious area and continue to allow groundwater infiltration at the same rate. Compliance with existing regulations as development occurs within the DTSP area will avoid significant impacts on existing stormwater facilities.

Hydrology and hydraulic studies will be required to determine if existing systems are sufficient for the proposed additional flows and/or to determine the appropriate sizing of any new storm drain system.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, And Telecommunications
The DTSP area is already served by electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.

New connections to these systems would be established as new development occurring within the Specific Plan area. Electricity is transmitted by a system compromised of both underground and above-ground power lines that currently supply sufficient electrical service to the DTSP area and have adequate capacity to service the area with buildout of the DTSP. The analysis and decision on capacity to meet future natural gas demand will be conducted by the Gas Company in coordination with the City at the time development occurs and building plans are submitted. Existing telecommunications infrastructure has adequate capacity to service the area with buildout of the DTSP. Buildout of the DTSP is within the SCAG population forecasts, used by the utility providers to project their service needs. For these reasons, the DTSP is not expected to require relocation or construction of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications which would cause significant environmental effects. Impacts are considered less than significant. d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The California Green Building Standards require new development to meet recycling minimums. The buildout of the DTSP is within the growth forecasts for the City of San Dimas. In addition, the County will continue to address landfill capacity through the preparation of annual CoIWMP reports. As stated within

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-10 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
the CoIWMP 2018 Annual Report, the County is not anticipating a solid waste disposal capacity shortfall within the next 15 years under forecasted growth conditions and less than significant impact would occur.

Cumulative Impact
Future development within the City would require increased domestic water service, including water supplies, stormwater system, and wastewater treatment capacity, or individual wells and septic systems.

The DTSP area is previously developed and serviced by existing stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. All future development must comply with the CBC, City’s Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and payment of development impact fees prior to connection.

The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) uses the same population growth estimates from SCAG that the City relies upon for future planning. The DTSP is proposed to implement the City’s General Plan and is identified in the City’s 2021 - 2029 Housing Element as a program intended to support the City meeting its RHNA goal of providing 1,248 additional housing units in the City over this planning period. Due to the rezoning of sites that would occur within the DTSP, there is a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units, consistent with the City’s Housing Element goal. Additional growth could occur after 2029 based on the additional development capacity that would be created by the DTSP. The maximum capacity of the zoning that would be established by the DTSP is approximately 3,600 units. Additional commercial and other nonresidential development is also projected within the DTSP area. The UWMP concludes that the Golden State Water Company can meet water demands during normal years, single dry years, and a five consecutive year drought periods over the next 25 years.

The City and utility providers evaluate the capacity of utilities and service systems regularly and is required to publish reports to the public on water quality, and to the state on wastewater capacity. Development Impact Fees adopted by the City are based on the General Plan. According to Chapter 15.02, Uniform Administrative Code, of the San Dimas Municipal Code, impact fees are paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance. As these requirements are contained in the San Dimas Municipal Code and are unaffected by the proposed project, the proposed project would have no impact to the relocation, construction, or expansion of utilities facilities.

The proposed DTSP is a proposed land use regulatory plan and no defined individual development projects are proposed at this time. Future development within the DTSP area would increase the demand for solid waste collection and disposal services and would increase the amount of solid waste generated and sent to landfills. AB 939, which requires recycling programs that result in a 50-percent diversion away from landfills, would apply to new development independent of the CEQA process. Thus, the implementation

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
City of San Dimas 4.13-11 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
of the proposed San Dimas Downtown Specific Plan update would have a less than significant impact regarding solid waste.

4.13.4 MITIGATION
As impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is necessary.

City of San Dimas 5.0-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Draft EIR include discussion of irreversible environmental change. The Guidelines indicates that “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely” and “irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Impacts could consist of reduction in availability of resources; commitment of future generations to specific land uses; or accidents that cause irreversible damage.

The future development that could result from the Project would involve the commitment of resources necessary for construction. This could include nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels. However, the Plan is not expected to significantly increase the amount or rate of consumption of these resources as compared to existing conditions throughout the City and the region. The Project is a Specific Plan that is intended to guide future development and use of land within the Project Area through the establishment of a planning and zoning framework for encouraging innovative, transit-oriented development in the greater downtown area while preserving the character of the historic commercial district. The Specific Plan proposes new housing, retail, employment, and hospitality uses within the Project Area, oriented around a new Metro Gold Line passenger light rail and transit station to open in The Specific Plan would accommodate a variety of uses that would evolve over time. Arguably, this sort of flexible design allows new development under the plan to have longer lifespans with lower consumption of non-renewable resources over the long-term.

Once established, land use patterns can be difficult to change. As such, the Project would likely commit future generations to the form of development envisioned by the Project. Furthermore, by increasing the density of development within the downtown area, growth pressure to develop virgin land at the City’s edges or redevelop other neighborhoods could decrease and the resources contained on those lands and existing neighborhoods would be preserved. This commitment to a pattern of development is consistent with the vision of the community to expand its downtown and to provide more mixed-use and multi-family residential development in the City. As such, the commitments of resources for the Project is justified by the alignment of the Project with community goals.

New development resulting from the Project would comply with current applicable codes that would improve the efficient use of natural resources. Likewise, the Project would result in lower per-capita energy and water demand by encouraging living within a mixed-use downtown area; encouraging energy

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of San Dimas 5.0-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
conservation through new construction and the adaptive reuse of existing buildings in compliance with modern building codes and seismic regulations; and reducing transportation demands by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation.

The nature of the Project does not support any change in activities that could result in accidents that would likely cause irreversible damage.

5.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Section 15126.2 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, requires that a Draft EIR include discussion of the potential growth-inducing impacts of a project. Growth-inducing impacts are defined as the ways a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Such a discussion should also include projects that would remove obstacles to population growth and the characteristics of a project, which may encourage and/or facilitate other activities that, either individually or cumulatively, could significantly affect the environment. The CEQA Guidelines state that growth in an area should not be considered beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project has the potential to foster economic or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any of the following criteria:
• Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area).
• Urbanization of land in a remote location (leapfrog development). • Economic expansion or growth occurring in an area in response to a project (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.).
• Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., a change in zoning or general plan designation).

Should a project meet any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing under CEQA. An evaluation of the proposed Project in relation to these growth-inducing criteria is provided in this section.

Removal Of An Impediment To Growth
The removal of an impediment to growth could have a large effect on a community. For example, if essential public services, such as water utilities or roadway access, were unavailable and, consequently, limited the physical growth of the community, removal of these improvements could induce growth. The Project area is currently served by the full range of public services and utilities and would not alter physical impediments to growth. The Project would alter the existing policy framework to accommodate a different quantity and shape of growth within the Plan area. The Project is intended to foster growth that is in

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of San Dimas 5.0-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
accordance with local and regional planning. The purpose of the Project is to guide growth and development in the City that will support new infill, mixed use development that facilitates pedestrian and transit use within the City’s downtown core. As such, the Project is intended to encourage and facilitate other activities that would improve the vitality of the downtown.

Urbanization
The Project plan area covers an area of central San Dimas that is already urban in its form and character.

As such, it would not result in urbanization of land in a remote location. The project is better characterized as the opposite of leapfrog development. Instead, it locates new mixed-used development on underutilized land located immediately adjacent to the existing mixed-use downtown area, where adequate infrastructure and transit already exist.

Economic Expansion
One of the primary economic development goals of the Project is to support the downtown area as an attractive, livable, and economically vital core. Much of the land located in the Plan Area is occupied by low activity-generating uses due to the disjointed character of area uses or awkward lot design. The Project is intended to remedy these conditions by providing a detailed vision and strong guidance for a vibrant mixed-use extension of downtown San Dimas. The resulting positive economic development, increased residential, office, retail and possibly hotel uses would be consistent with the economic conditions already found in the downtown area and not to create new economic conditions that could have a negative impact on the environment. As such, some economic expansion is intended to make conditions more consistent with the surrounding areas of the City and reduce development pressures in surrounding neighborhoods.

Therefore, any economic expansion resulting from the project is not considered growth inducing or likely to have significant negative environmental impacts.

Precedent-Setting Action
Precedent setting actions could include approvals that have implications for other properties or that could make it easier for other properties to develop. The Project involves adopting a specific plan which is consistent with the General Plan and similar to specific plans that has been implemented throughout the City. The Project has implications for properties within the Plan Area as it is intended to accommodate growth on these properties. The enhancement of the Plan Area could potentially encourage development on other properties within the vicinity. However, the use of a Specific Plan to accommodate growth consistent with the General Plan is not in itself precedent setting. The proposed Specific Plan is similar to mixed use zones and other specific plans found throughout the City. As such, the Project would not establish a precedent that could have implications for other parts of the City.

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
City of San Dimas 5.0-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Summary of Growth Inducing Impacts
The Project is intended to expand the existing downtown by providing for compact urban development that features active streetscapes and pedestrian connections to the existing downtown and both existing and future public transportation currently under construction. The Project planned growth would not be induced in isolated, undeveloped areas or in built-out neighborhoods. As such, the Project would induce growth according to the goal of the City and in a way that minimizes effects on the environment.

City of San Dimas 6.0-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

6.0 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIR provides a comparative analysis of the merits of alternatives to the Project pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to provide information on potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize any significant effects of a proposed Project.

The identification and analysis of alternatives to a proposed project is a fundamental aspect of the environmental review process under CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21002 states, in part: “it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a) states: “The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) provides the following guidance regarding an EIR’s discussion of alternatives:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes the selection of project alternatives should be based primarily on the ability to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts attributable to a proposed project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) further directs that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed. In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives must be feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.

Beyond these factors, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires the analysis of a “no project” alternative and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) requires the evaluation of alternative location(s) for a proposed project, if feasible. Based on the alternatives analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to designate an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) states:

The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project… If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), each alternative is evaluated in sufficient detail to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be less, similar, or greater than the corresponding impacts of the proposed Project. As such, the focus of the evaluation is on those environmental resources for which the proposed Project may have potential impacts.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need only examine in detail those alternatives that could feasibly meet most of the basic objectives of the Project. The objectives for the San Dimas Downtown Specific Plan Project are to provide:

1. A community-supported vision and guiding principles that encourage a vibrant and pedestrianfriendly downtown, and goals and policies to guide decision-makers in achieving the community’s vision for the downtown area.

2. Zoning and land uses which encourage the development of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities, objective development and design standards to provide clear guidance for property owners, developers, and City staff, and streamlined review and approval processes.

3. Infrastructure and mobility recommendations to ensure infrastructure is adequately addressed and to promote safe and efficient circulation, active transportation, and complete streets.

4. Implementation strategies and tools to encourage redevelopment and economic investment of residential and commercial development and to promote projects and partnerships.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE SAN DIMAS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

PROJECT
In accordance with Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to the Proposed Project i were defined to provide additional information on ways to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project as identified and described in Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis of this Draft EIR.

Table 6.0-1: Environmental Impact Summary presents a summary of findings for each topic analyzed in this EIR for the proposed Project. As shown, impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources were determined to be significant prior to mitigation and less than significant with implementation of proposed mitigation measures.

Table 6.0-1: Environmental Impact Summary
Topic Potentially
Significant Impact?
Mitigated to Less
than Significant?
Unavoidable
Significant Impact?
Air Quality Yes No Yes
Cultural Resources Yes Yes No
Energy No N/A N/A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions No N/A N/A
Geology and Soils Yes Yes No
Hazards and Hazardous Materials No N/A N/A
Land Use No N/A N/A
Noise Yes Yes No
Population and Housing No N/A N/A
Public Services No N/A N/A
Transportation No N/A N/A
Tribal Cultural Resources Yes Yes No
Utilities and Service Systems No N/A N/A
Measures are identified to mitigate impacts to less than significant, with the exception of the air quality impacts associated with construction and operational emissions with implementation of the proposed DTSP. For air quality, as summarized further below no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the amount of estimated emissions below the level of significance defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

As discussed in Section 4.1: Air Quality, in this EIR, implementation of the DTSP would have estimated construction and operational air quality emissions from future development that are likely to exceed regional and localized thresholds. The DTSP is a planning document to guide development; no specific development projects are proposed at this time. The DTSP would not directly enable or entitle construction or development activities and all future development within the proposed DTSP area will be

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
subject to existing regulations, including adopted air quality standards, and subsequent environmental review under CEQA. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to emissions likely to be generated by subsequent individual development projects in the proposed DTSP area to less than significant that would be consistent with the objectives of the DTSP.

6.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS
According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives included in this discussion should be sufficient to allow decision makers a reasoned choice. The alternative discussion should provide decision makers with an understanding of the merits and disadvantages of these alternatives.

The analysis in Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis of this EIR identified significant and unavoidable air quality impacts associated with construction and operational emissions. Impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources would be significant but would be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. The City reviewed and identified alternatives for analysis to determine if these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen these significant impacts identified for the Proposed Project to comply with the requirements of Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.

6.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed and the reasons for eliminating alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts. In reviewing and defining alternatives to the Proposed Project, the City did not consider any alternatives other than the alternatives described in Section 6.5.

6.5 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
The City of San Dimas identified several alternatives for analysis in this EIR to determine if these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project and meet the basic Project objectives.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-5 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
The following alternatives were identified for purposes of comparative analysis to provide additional information on ways the effects of the Project on the environment could be lessened or avoided:
• Alternative 1 – No Project
• Alternative 2 – Alternative Specific Plan Area
• Alternative 3 – Reduced Intensity
Section 15126.6 (e) (1) requires the evaluation of the specific alternative of “no project” to be evaluated along with its impact. In addition to the “no project” alternative, two additional alternatives were identified for purposes of comparative analysis to provide additional information on ways the effects of the Project on the environment could be lessened or avoided. In addition to the No Project Alternative, two additional alternatives were identified. One would implement the Project with different DTSP boundaries which would reduce the total area within the DTSP, and the second would reduce total residential development within the proposed DTSP boundaries, while feasibly meeting most of the following objectives for the Project as identified in Section 2.0: Project Description:

5. A community-supported vision and guiding principles that encourage a vibrant and pedestrianfriendly downtown, and goals and policies to guide decision-makers in achieving the community’s vision for the downtown area.

6. Zoning and land uses which encourage the development of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities, objective development and design standards to provide clear guidance for property owners, developers, and City staff, and streamlined review and approval processes.

7. Infrastructure and mobility recommendations to ensure infrastructure is adequately addressed and to promote safe and efficient circulation, active transportation, and complete streets.

8. Implementation strategies and tools to encourage redevelopment and economic investment of residential and commercial development and to promote projects and partnerships.

Alternative 2 - Alternative Specific Plan Area would encompass approximately 115 acres and would have a development potential of approximately development potential 4.5 million square feet of building space.

The proposed DTSP boundary would encompass 202 acres and have a development potential of approximately 15.2 million square feet of building space. The Alternative Specific Plan Area focuses on the central portion of the City’s Downtown and does not extend as far west and east as the proposed DTSP.

This alternative would result in less overall development.

Alternative 3 - Reduced Intensity Alternative would maintain the proposed Specific Plan Area boundary and reduce the residential dwelling unit intensity within the DTSP Transit Village plan area by 25 percent.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-6 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
The maximum density of the Transit Village plan area would be reduced from a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre with this alternative.

6.5.1 Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative
Consideration of the No Project/No Development Alternative is required by Section 15126(2)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis must examine the impacts which could occur if the site is left in its present condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Alternative 1 assumes the DTSP would not be adopted or implemented and assumes development in the proposed Specific Plan Area occurs as allowed by the City’s current General Plan. All new development in the Specific Plan area under Alternative 1 would need to be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations. Alternative 1 would result in lower-density development within the Specific Plan area, resulting in approximately 30 to 35 percent less development when compared with the DTSP. The transportation and mobility improvements envisioned in the DTSP would not occur with this alternative.

Air Quality
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area and would not provide a framework for development that would be mixed-use and transit-oriented. As less development would occur with Alternative 1, when compared with the DTSP, Alternative 1 would result in less construction activity in the Specific Plan area. Alternative 1 would have construction emissions likely at or below applicable regional and localized thresholds.

Operational emissions within the Specific Plan area would likely also be reduced under Alternative 1, when compared with the proposed DTSP, as there would be less total residential, commercial, and industrial development. Though emissions generated within the Specific Plan area would be reduced under Alternative 1, when compared to the proposed DTSP, emissions citywide or regionally could increase. The potential for this increase would be the result of less dense development downtown as new development projects would need to comply with the existing General Plan land uses and zoning designations, meaning new development would not include mixed-use and transit oriented development and new development may occur farther from major transit stops and business centers. This has the potential to result in the need to commute in vehicles more frequently.

Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area when compared to the DTSP.

However, Alternative 1 does not preclude new development projects within the Specific Plan area.

Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential air quality emissions to the greatest degree

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-7 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
feasible. Alternative 1 may lessen new construction and operations related emissions but would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impacts as the General Plan currently allows substantial development to occur within the proposed Specific Plan area. While the amount of development would be reduced in comparison to the Proposed Project, emission would still likely be above SCAQMD significance thresholds with mitigation. The No Project Alternative would, therefore, lessen, but not avoid the significant air quality impacts identified for the Proposed Project. The proposed DTSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impact.

Cultural Resources
As identified in Section 4.2: Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are 25 recognized historic structures within the Specific Plan area that are considered historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. 18 are locally significant, 3 are nationally significant, and 5 are part of the proposed Lower San Dimas Historic District.

While Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area it does not preclude future development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to l cultural resources as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the No Project Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impact of the Proposed Project on cultural resources.

Energy
Alternative 1 would result in less development in the Specific Plan area but would also not include the framework for development defined in the DTSP that would be facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development. As such, Alternative 1 new development projects would need to comply with the existing General Plan land uses and zoning designations, meaning new development would not include mixed-use and transit-oriented development and new development may occur farther from major transit stops and business centers, resulting in greater use of transportation energy. The energy impacts associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA.

While the proposed DTSP would allow future development that would consume energy during construction and operation, the DTSP would establish a planning framework to facilitate future mixed-use and transit-oriented development, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for transportation.

The proposed DTSP would not result in significant energy impacts and neither would the No Project Alternative. As the amount of development would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-8 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
under Alternative 1, energy usage would also be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen significant energy impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 1 would result in less development in the Specific Plan area but would also not include the framework for development defined in the DTSP that would be facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development. As such, Alternative 1 new development projects would need to comply with the existing General Plan land uses and zoning designations, meaning new development would not include mixed-use and transit-oriented development and may occur farther from major transit stops and business centers.

This would result in the potential for higher GHG emissions. The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA.

The proposed DTSP creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

The proposed DTSP would not conflict with the regional effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would be considered significant in a regional or state perspective. The No Project Alternative would, therefore, lessen greenhouse gas emissions. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant GHG impact.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area. As discussed in Section 4.4:

Geology and Soils, of this EIR, no unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to be present within the Specific Plan area. While unique paleontological resources have been found within one mile of the Specific Plan area, these finds are within an area identified in the General Plan as a different geologic stratum. While Alternative 1 would result in less development in the Specific Plan area it does not preclude future development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant geology and soils impacts to the fullest extent feasible. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the No Project Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant geology and soils impact.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-9 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area. However, Alternative 1 does not preclude future development from occurring in the Specific Plan area. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential hazards and hazardous materials as defined by CEQA. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant hazards impact.

Land Use
Under Alternative 1, the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning would remain in the Specific Plan area. As such, under this Alternative no changes would occur to the existing allowed uses and new development projects. Under Alternative 1, new development projects would need to comply with the existing General Plan land uses and zoning designations, meaning new development would not include mixed-use and transit-oriented development and new development may occur farther from major transit stops and business centers. Alternative 1 would continue the existing development pressure City’s open space and habitat resources. The proposed DTSP creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. The rezoning that would occur within the DTSP would facilitate the development of 1,248 new affordable housing units, as designated by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) count, consistent with the City’s Housing Element goal. The Housing Element identifies a total of 2,647 units being developed to meet the lowerincome unit needs of the City. The Housing Element identifies adoption of the DTSP as an implementation measure for the Housing Element. If the DTSP is not adopted, the City would need to amend the General Plan and approve zone changes individually for the housing sites identified in the Housing Element. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant land use impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant land use impact.

Noise
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area. However, Alternative 1 does not preclude future development from occurring in the Specific Plan area. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential noise and vibration as defined by CEQA.

Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts related to any noise and vibration that may occur during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the No Project Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-10 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
less than significant noise impacts with mitigation, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise and vibration impact.

Population and Housing
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area. While Alternative 1 does not preclude future development from occurring in the Specific Plan area, it does not facilitate an increase in housing production beyond the current densities allowed by existing land use designations and zoning.

Further, under Alternative 1 the City may not meet the housing production goals in the Housing Element as the City’s General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the preparation and approval of the DTSP to change zoning to facilitate development of additional housing. The proposed DTSP creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. All potential growth that may occur as a result of approval of the DTSP would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant population and housing impact identified for the Proposed Project.

Public Services
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area, but does not preclude future development from occurring in the Specific Plan area as the General Plan currently allows substantial development to occur in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is already served by existing public service facilities and new development would increase the need for public services.

However, given that the proposed DTSP does not expect that new facilities would be necessary to serve the Specific Plan area, no new facilities are anticipated to be necessary under Alternative 1. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impact.

Transportation
Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area and would not provide a framework for development that would facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under Alternative 1, new development projects would need to comply with the existing General Plan land uses and zoning designations, meaning new development would not include mixed-use and transit-oriented development and new development may occur farther from major transit stops and business centers.

Further, Alternative 1 would not include the proposed improvements to pedestrian and cyclists facilities included within the DTSP. As analyzed in Section 4.11: Transportation, of this EIR, implementation of the DTSP would reduce the total VMT per capita when compared to Alternative 1, analyzed as the ‘2045 Base’.

Alternative 1 would result in a higher total VMT per capita than the proposed DTSP. As the proposed DTSP

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-11 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
would result in less than significant public service impacts, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impact.

Tribal Cultural Resources
While Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area it does not preclude future development. As identified in Section 4.12: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are no tribal cultural resources listed or known within the Specific Plan area. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities.

Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the No Project Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant tribal cultural resources impact.

Utilities and Service Systems
While Alternative 1 would result in less dense development in the Specific Plan area it does not preclude future development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to utilities and service systems as defined by CEQA. The Specific Plan area is previously developed and serviced by existing stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

Future development within the City would require additional domestic water distribution and wastewater collection facilities, generate additional wastewater requiring treatment, increase water demand and require additional stormwater collection facilities. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and other service systems, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact to utilities and service systems.

6.5.2 Alternative 2 — Alternative Specific Plan Area
Alternative 2 proposes an alternative boundary for the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. The boundaries for this alternative are illustrated in Figure 6.0-1: Alternative Specific Plan Area Map. The Alternative Specific Plan Area generally extends to S. Eucla Avenue on the west to Pony Express Way on the east and includes additional area to the north to W. 2nd Street. This alternative area would encompass approximately 115 acres and would have a development potential of approximately 4.5 million square feet of building space. Alternative 2 would include portions of established and often historic single-family neighborhoods surrounding the commercial core within the alternative plan area.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-12 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
The proposed DTSP boundary would encompass 202 acres and have a development potential of approximately 15.18 million square feet of building space. The Alternative Specific Plan Area focuses on the central portion of the City’s Downtown and does not extend as far west and east as the proposed DTSP which extends to the 57 Freeway on the west and approximately 0.3 miles east of Walnut Avenue. This alternative would result in less overall development. As discussed within the DTSP, existing established single-family neighborhoods surrounding the commercial core have been intentionally excluded from the DTSP boundaries in order to focus on areas of potential growth and to preserve the existing and often historic single-family neighborhoods in the vicinity.

Air Quality
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. Compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in approximately 70 percent less development than the proposed DTSP. As discussed in Section 4.1: Air Quality, of this EIR, reducing growth in the DTSP areas would not necessarily reduce population growth because people could still move to the region or Basin but would reside outside of the DTSP area. Further, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to emissions likely to be generated by subsequent individual development projects in the proposed DTSP area to less than significant that would be consistent with the objectives of the DTSP. Given this, it is unlikely that the Alternative Specific Plan Area would result in emissions generated by subsequent individual development projects to less than significant and maintain consistency with the Project objectives. Alternative 2 may lessen new construction and operational emissions but would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impacts. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential air quality emissions to the greatest degree feasible.

Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Alternative Specific Plan Area. While the amount of development would be reduced in comparison to the Proposed Project, emission would still likely be above SCAQMD significance thresholds with mitigation. The Alternative Specific Plan Area would, therefore, substantially lessen, but not avoid the significant air quality impacts identified for the Proposed Project. The proposed DTSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid any significant air quality impact.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. As identified in Section 4.2: Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are recognized historic structures within the planning area that are considered historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. Alternative 2 would include portions of established and often historic single-family neighborhoods surrounding the commercial core within the alternative plan area, while the proposed DTSP does not.

HE Site #1 3.2 Acres
HE Site #2 2.9 Acres HE Site #3 2.9 Acres
HE Site #4 5.2 Acres
HE Site #5 11.5 Acres
HE Site #6 4.4 Acres HE Site #7 5.6 Acres
HE Site #8 4.4 Acres
HE Site #9 2.8 Acres
HE Site #10 3.1 Acres
HE Site #10b 12.4 Acres
HE Site #11 11.3 Acres
HE Site #12 9.0 Acres
HE Site #14 3 Acres
HE Site #13 12.9 Acres
Alternate Specific Plan Area Map
FIGURE 6.0-1
343-001-21
SOURCE: DTSP Draft_Chapter 6 - 2023
N

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-14 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
As such, this alternative has potential impacts to cultural resources. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential cultural resources as defined by CEQA.

Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities.

Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Alternative Specific Plan Area. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant cultural resources impact.

Energy
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that would consume energy during construction and operation. The energy impacts associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Alternative 2, as with the proposed DTSP, would not have direct impacts to energy. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant energy impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant any potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, would not conflict with the regional effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would be considered significant in a regional or state perspective. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant GHG impact.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. As discussed in Section 4.4: Geology and Soils, of this EIR, no unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to be present within the Specific Plan area. While unique paleontological resources have been found within one mile of the Specific Plan area, these finds are within an area identified in the General Plan as a different geologic stratum. Under this

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-15 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant any potential geology and soils impacts.

Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Alternative Specific Plan Area. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant geology and soils impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential hazards and hazardous materials as defined by CEQA. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant hazards impact.

Land Use
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. Alternative 2 has a lower development potential by approximately 10.7 million square feet of building space in comparison to the Proposed Project, which is 70 percent less than the proposed DTSP. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sitesidentified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity. Alternative 2 includes 8 of the 14 primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The sites identified have the potential to help the City meet its 2021-2029 Adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The DTSP boundary includes 11 of the 14 primary opportunity sites identified. Alternative 2 would include portions of established and often historic singlefamily neighborhoods surrounding the commercial core within the alternative plan area, while the proposed DTSP does not. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant land use impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant land use impact.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-16 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Noise
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to noise and vibration as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts related to any noise and vibration that may occur during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Alternative Specific Plan Area. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise and vibration impact.

Population and Housing
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. Alternative 2 would encompass has a lower development potential by approximately 10.68 million square feet of building space, which is 70 percent smaller than the proposed DTSP. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sites within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity.

Alternative 2 includes 8 of the 14 primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The sites identified have the potential to help the City meet its 2021-2029 Adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The DTSP boundary includes 11 of the 14 primary opportunity sites identified. Due to the rezoning of sites that would occur within the DTSP, there is a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units, as identified by the RHNA allocation, consistent with the City’s Housing Element goal. The Housing Element identifies a total of 2,647 units being developed to meet the lower income unit needs of the City. Overall, Alternative 2 provides less opportunities for new housing when compared to the DTSP. For this reason, Alternative 2 would not facilitate meeting the housing production goals in the Housing Element to the extent the Proposed Project would. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant Population and Housing impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant population and housing impact.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-17 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Public Services
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The alternative plan area is already served by existing public service facilities and new development could result in additional calls for service. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to public services as defined by CEQA. However, given that the proposed DTSP does not expect that new facilities would be necessary to serve the Specific Plan area, no new facilities are anticipated to be necessary under Alternative 2, which would have less overall development. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impact.

Transportation
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sites within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity. However, Alternative 2 includes 8 of the 14 primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element, compared to the proposed DTSP which includes 11 of the 14 primary opportunity sites. Given that Alternative 2 has a lower development potential it would see less mixed-use and transit oriented than the proposed DTSP. Further, the proposed improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities included within the proposed DTSP, that are outside of the Alternative Specific Plan Area, would not be implemented under this alternative. As such, Alternative 2 would result in a higher total VMT per capita than the proposed DTSP. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant transportation impact and may result in additional impacts.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. As identified in Section 4.12: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are no tribal cultural resources listed or known within the Specific Plan area. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze,

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-18 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA.

Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Alternative Specific Plan Area. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant tribal cultural resources impact.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would result in less total development as the Alternative Specific Plan Area is smaller when compared to the DTSP. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to utilities and service systems as defined by CEQA. The Specific Plan area is previously developed and serviced by existing stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Future development within the City would require increased domestic water service, including water supplies, stormwater system, and wastewater treatment capacity, or individual wells and septic systems. Given the reduction in total allowed development under the Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed DTSP, there would be a corresponding reduction in utility and service system demands. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant utilities and service systems impact.

6.5.3 Alternative 3 — Reduced Intensity Alternative
Alternative 3 would reduce the residential dwelling unit intensity within the DTSP Transit Village plan area by 25 percent. The maximum density of the Transit Village plan area is reduced from a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre, with a development potential of approximately 787 dwelling units, to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre, with a development potential of approximately 591 dwelling units.

Alternative 3 would have a development potential of 196 fewer dwelling units when compared to the DTSP. Development would occur within the same boundaries as proposed by the DTSP. A 25 percent reduction in the maximum allowed number of residential dwelling units within the Transit Village plan area would result in the total square footage allowed under a maximum buildout of Alternative 3 being approximately 400,000 square feet smaller compared to the DTSP as proposed.

Air Quality
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area by approximately 400,000 square feet of building space, which is 2 percent less than the proposed DTSP. As discussed in

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-19 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Section 4.1: Air Quality, of this EIR, reducing growth in the DTSP areas would not necessarily reduce population growth because people could still move to the region or Basin but would reside outside of the DTSP area. Further, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to emissions likely to be generated by subsequent individual development projects in the proposed DTSP area to less than significant that would be consistent with the objectives of the DTSP. Given this, it is unlikely that the Alternative Specific Plan Area would be able to reduce emissions generated by subsequent individual development projects to less than significant and maintain consistency with the Project objectives. Alternative 3 may lessen new construction and operations related emissions but would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impacts. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential air quality emissions to the greatest degree feasible. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Alternative 3 would incrementally lessen, but not substantially lessen or avoid, the significant impact identified for the proposed DTSP. As the proposed DTSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impact.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. As identified in Section 4.2: Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are 25 recognized historic structures within the planning area that are considered historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. 18 are locally significant, 3 are nationally significant, and 5 are part of the proposed Lower San Dimas Historic District. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential cultural resources as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant cultural resources impact.

Energy
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development that would consume energy during construction and operation. The energy impacts associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Alternative 3, as with the proposed DTSP, would not have significant impacts to energy. Alternative 3 would incrementally lessen, but not substantially lessen or avoid, a significant impact

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-20 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
for the proposed DTSP. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant energy impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development. The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would not conflict with the regional effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would be considered significant in a regional or state perspective. Alternative 3 would incrementally lessen, but not substantially lessen or avoid, a significant impact for the proposed DTSP. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant GHG impact.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. As discussed in Section 4.4: Geology and Soils, of this EIR, no unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to be present within the plan area. While unique paleontological resources have been found within one mile of the plan area, these finds are within an area identified in the General Plan as a different geologic stratum. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant any potential geology and soils impacts. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant geology and soils impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential hazards and hazardous materials as defined by CEQA. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant hazards impact.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-21 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
Land Use
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area by approximately 400,000 square feet of building space, but would encompass the same boundaries as the proposed DTSP.

Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sites within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity.

Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, includes 11 of the 14 primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The sites identified have the potential to help the City meet its 2021-2029 Adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The Transit Village plan area includes opportunity sites number 4 and 5 as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. As the development potential of the Transit Village plan area would be reduced from a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre under this Alternative, it would not meet the proposed density of 35 to 45 dwelling units per acre identified within the Housing Element. This would potentially reduce the ability for the City to meet the housing production goals of the Housing Element. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant land use impact.

Noise
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to noise and vibration as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts related to any noise and vibration that may occur during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise and vibration impact.

Population and Housing
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 3 would encompass the same

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-22 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
boundaries as the proposed DTSP with a 25 percent reduction in the maximum allowed number of residential dwelling units within the Transit Village plan area. The maximum density of the Transit Village plan area is reduced from a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sites within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, includes 11 of the 14 primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. The sites identified have the potential to help the City meet its 2021-2029 Adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. Under Alternative 3 there is a potential increase of 1,248 new housing units, as identified by the RHNA allocation, consistent with the housing production goal in the City’s Housing Element, similar to the proposed DTSP. The Housing Element identifies a total of 2,647 units being developed to meet the lower income unit needs of the City. The total reduction in development within the Transit Village plan area would not affect the City’s focus on meeting its RHNA target. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant land use impact.

Public Services
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. The Specific Plan area is already served by existing public service facilities and new development could result in additional calls for service. The Alternative Specific Plan Area, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to public services as defined by CEQA. However, given that the proposed DTSP does not expect that new facilities would be necessary to serve the Specific Plan area, no new facilities are anticipated to be necessary under Alternative 3, which would have less overall development. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impact.

Transportation
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, creates a planning framework for future mixed-use and transit-oriented development that is consistent with the existing General Plan. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, also includes several opportunity sites within walking distance of the transit station that provide significant potential for infill development and adaptive reuse of existing underutilized downtown properties, the redevelopment of which would support greater pedestrian and multimodal connectivity. Alternative 3

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-23 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
would include all proposed improvements to pedestrian and cyclist facilities included within the proposed DTSP. Alternative 3 would see a 25 percent reduction in the maximum allowed number of residential dwelling units within the Transit Village plan area, which overall corresponds to a 2 percent reduction in total development potential. This reduction would marginally increase the total VMT per capita when compared to the proposed DTSP but would not result in a significant increase given the remaining potential for mixed-use and transit-oriented development and proposed transportation facilities improvements under this alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impact.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. As identified in Section 4.12: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, there are no tribal cultural resources listed or known within the Specific Plan area. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to any potential tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities. Similar mitigation would apply to development occurring under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant tribal cultural resources impact.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of development in the Transit Village plan area. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed DTSP, would create a planning framework for future mixed-use and transitoriented development. Under this alternative, future development projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA and would be required to analyze, identify, and mitigate any significant impacts to utilities and service systems as defined by CEQA. The Specific Plan area is previously developed and serviced by existing stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

Future development within the City would require increased domestic water service, including water supplies, stormwater system, and wastewater treatment capacity, or individual wells and septic systems.

Given the reduction in total allowed development under the Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed DTSP, there would be a corresponding reduction in utility and service system demands. As the proposed DTSP would result in less than significant impacts, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant utilities and service systems impact.

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-24 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

6.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in an EIR. Of the alternatives considered in this section, the No Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the other alternatives because this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the other alternatives considered, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be considered environmentally superior, as it would avoid all impacts of the Project as proposed. However, no significant impacts would be avoided, and the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed Project. For this reason, no significant impacts would be avoided or substantially lessened by the No Project Alternative.

Of the other alternatives evaluated, the Alternative Specific Plan Area, which would include approximately 115 acres and with a development potential of approximately 4.5 million square feet of building space.

The proposed DTSP would encompass 202 acres and have a development potential of approximately 15.18 million square feet of building space. The change in the plan area size and configuration would reduce the development potential by approximately 10.7 million square feet of building space, which is 70 percent less than the proposed DTSP.

The change in configuration of the Alternative Specific Plan Area and the reduction in total development potential would reduce estimated construction and operational air quality emissions that are likely to exceed regional and localized thresholds. However, reducing growth in the plan area would not necessarily reduce population growth because people could still move to the region or Basin but would reside outside of the plan area. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to emissions likely to be generated by subsequent individual development projects to less than significant that would be consistent with the objectives of the Project. The change in configuration under the Alternative Specific Plan Area would not reduce impacts to cultural resources. This alternative includes portions of established and often locally significant single-family neighborhoods surrounding the commercial core within the alternative plan area, while the proposed DTSP does not. As such, this alternative has potential impacts to cultural resources.

Mitigation measures are identified for the proposed DTSP to avoid the potential for significant impacts to any inadvertent discovery of cultural resources that may be encountered during construction activities.

While this alternative changes the configuration and reduces development potential of the Specific Plan area, other impacts, such as geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources would not be reduced these impacts as mitigation measures have been identified that already reduce these impacts to less than

6.0 Alternatives
City of San Dimas 6.0-25 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
significant. Given the reduction in total development potential and the change in the configuration of the Specific Plan area under this alternative, it would include three fewer primary opportunity sites for new housing located within the City’s downtown as identified by the City’s General Plan Housing Element. This alternative would not establish the zoning needed to meet the Housing Element production goals, and, as such, this alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed DTSP.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would incrementally reduce air quality emissions; however, emission would still exceed regional and localized thresholds. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to emissions likely to be generated by subsequent individual development projects to less than significant that would be consistent with the objectives of the Project. While this alternative changes the total development potential of the Specific Plan area, other impacts, such as cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal cultural resources would not be reduced. Mitigation measures for these impacts have been identified for the proposed DTSP and this alternative, which would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would incrementally reduce some impacts, it is considered the environmentally superior alternative. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would see a reduction in the total development potential when compared to the proposed DTSP, and, as such, it would not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed DTSP.

City of San Dimas 7.0-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an EIR to briefly describe any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted preliminary analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Project by preparing an Initial Study. The City determined through the preliminary analysis in the Initial Study that the Project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. A summary of the preliminary analysis for these topics is provided below.

7.2 AESTHETICS
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed project—a Downtown Specific Plan—comprises a programmatic, policy-level planning document. The Specific Plan is intended to guide the orderly development and redevelopment of the downtown infrastructure, businesses, and housing, but does not propose any specific development at this time. Development standards that address site relationships and views are identified within the Downtown Specific Plan. Future development within the Project Area must be consistent with the policies of the Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state designated scenic highway? According to the Caltrans Scenic Highway Systems Map,1 there is no officially designated scenic highway within the Project Area.

The City of San Dimas adopted a Scenic Highway Overlay Zone Ordinance in 1992 for the purpose of designating appropriate highways and streets as scenic corridors pursuant to the goals, objectives, and provisions of the Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Elements of the City’s General Plan.2 Wherever a scenic highway overlay designation is applied, the properties adjacent to the designated highway are subject to the provisions of the scenic highway zone in addition to the provisions of the underlying zone of the property. All uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zone to which the scenic 1 Caltrans, “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” 2 City of San Dimas Municipal Code, Chapter 18.108, Scenic Highway Overlay Zone.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
overlay zone is applied are permitted; the scenic highway zone is not intended to prohibit uses which are otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zone.

The City’s official Zoning Map identifies Foothill Boulevard, and the City’s Municipal Code additionally identifies Via Verde and Puente Street, as subject to the scenic highway overlay zone. None of the identified streets or highways lies within or intersects with the Downtown Specific Plan area, and thus will not be impacted by the proposed Project.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? As a policy and regulatory document, the Specific Plan would provide policy direction, guidelines, development standards, and implementation actions intended to preserve and enhance the unique character of the downtown San Dimas study area. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As a policy and regulatory document, the Specific Plan would provide policy, guidelines, development standards, and implementation actions intended to preserve and enhance the unique character of downtown San Dimas. As such, future development that complied with the Project would not generate excessive light or glare. Impacts would be less than significant.

7.3 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
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?
The Project is located within a developed and urbanized area of the City. No farmland or agricultural activity exists on or near the Project Area. No portion of the Project Area is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance.3 As such, no impacts would occur.
3 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “California Important Farmland Finder,” accessed December 16, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? According to the City Zoning Designation, the City does contain land zoned for agricultural use, however none are located in the Project Area.4 The Project would not affect any properties that are zoned for agricultural use or currently under a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. 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))? The City and the Project Area of the City are located in an urban setting and do not contain any land zoned or managed as forest land or timberland.5 The Project would not cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or any related forest land or timberland use. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project Area does not contain any land zoned or managed as forest land or timberland. The City and the Project Area of the City are located in an urban setting and do not contain any land zoned for forest land or timberland. There would be no loss of forest land or conservation of forest land. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
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 conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted within the Project Area. The City does contain land zoned for agricultural use; however, none are located in the Project Area. Additionally, the Project Area does not contain any land zoned for forest land or timberland. As such, no farmland or forest land would be converted to other uses under the proposed Project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 4 City of San Dimas, Community Development Department, Planning Division, “San Dimas Zoning Map (2011),” accessed December 16, 2021.
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/Zoning-Map.pdf.
5 City of San Dimas, Community Development Department, Planning Division, “San Dimas Zoning Map (2011),” accessed December 16, 2021.
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/Zoning-Map.pdf.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-4 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

7.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? The City of San Dimas General Plan Conservation Element states that no species of plant or wildlife currently designated as rare or threatened has been located or is expected to occur within the city, except for the Big Horn Sheep, which inhabits areas outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area. The Project Area is urbanized. Though it includes some trees, ground cover and undeveloped lots, the Project Area does not include substantial areas of unique habitat. The East San Gabriel Valley Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) is located south of Arrow Highway close to but outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area. As such, the Project would not have an effect directly or through habitat modification on the SEA. Therefore, since the proposed Project would not eliminate any native wildlife habitat or sensitive plant communities and would not affect any important habitat linkages that could support sensitive species, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The San Dimas General Plan Conservation Element does not identify any sensitive natural communities on or within the vicinity of the Downtown Specific Plan area. The Downtown Specific Plan area is located in an upland area that contains impervious surfaces (i.e., asphalt and cemented streets and parking lots and buildings) and nonnative ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover and, therefore, does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. The proposed Specific Plan would involve infill development within an already highly disturbed urban environment and would not involve any changes or alterations to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. 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?
Wetlands are defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory shows that the nearest wetland is located south of Arrow Highway between South San Dimas Avenue and South Cataract Avenue, approximately 500 feet from the southern boundary of the Project Area. The Project would not discharge dredged or fill material into the nearest wetland during construction or operation in accordance

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-5 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
with Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Any materials removed on site would be hauled to an offsite location for proper disposal and treatment. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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?
The Downtown Specific Plan area is located in an already highly disturbed urban environment that contains an appreciable amount of impervious surfaces (i.e., asphalt and cemented streets, parking lots, and buildings) and that does not feature any sensitive natural communities, migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, the proposed Project would have no adverse impact. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Specific Plan does not propose or entitle any new development projects, and any future development projects initiated pursuant to the Plan will be required to comply with the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 18.162) of the San Dimas Municipal Code as required by the City’s Conservation Element. Per the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, no issuance of any grading or building permits or commencement of work shall be allowed on undeveloped property prior to the approval of a tree removal permit. No mature significant tree which conforms to the standards and definitions established within the Municipal Code shall be removed or relocated without obtaining the written approval of the Director of Development Services. Mature trees may be removed from developed property with the approval of the Director of Development Services or Development Plan Review Board, subject to the procedures outlined in Ch. 18.162 Section 040. Thus, the Specific Plan will not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance or Conservation Element.
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? The proposed Specific Plan does not propose policies or programs that would conflict with the existing policies regarding the protection of biological resources in the General Plan. While impacts to specialstatus species and habitats have the potential to occur, future development would be required to analyze impacts to biological resources as required by Goal 1 of the San Dimas General Plan Conservation Element that provides objectives for managing and conserving natural resources. Further, compliance with the migratory bird treaty act, wetlands protection, and the endangered species act is required of the property owner independent of the CEQA or entitlement process. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely impact biological resources, special-status habitat, wetlands, wildlife movement, local policies protecting biological resources, or conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or state habitat conservation plan.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-6 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

7.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
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, caused in whole or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing environmental conditions? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The State Mining and Geology Board defines an active fault as one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years) and defines a potentially active fault as any fault that has been active during the Quaternary Period (approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1994 as the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones Act.

The City sits in the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Valley and traversed by several faults. The Sierra Madre Fault is located in the northern portion of the City running east-west, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project. The Indian Hill Fault runs through the Project Area from east to west. The Walnut Creek Fault runs from the Orange Freeway (SR-57) to the southwest, approximately 1.0 miles southwest of the Project Area. The San Jose Fault runs mostly east-west along the southern boundary of the City at the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) and Orange Freeway (SR-57) interchange, approximately 2.5 miles south of the Project Area. The City is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Ground rupture could occur along the surface traces of the potentially active Sierra Madre Fault. Additionally, the Project does not approve any physical alteration of land or development. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of known earthquake faults, and impacts would be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking, caused in whole or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing environmental conditions?
Although the City does not contain areas within an Alquist-Priolo Zone, the southern California region in general is seismically active. The City is susceptible to ground shaking during a seismic event.6 The adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan would not approve any development projects. As the Project is located in a seismically active region, all future construction projects would be required to conform to all applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and any other applicable laws and ordinances 6 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-7 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
with respect to new construction. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, caused in whole or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing environmental conditions?
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, finegrained granular soils behave similarly to fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when there is the presence of shallow groundwater, low-density fine, clean, sandy soils, and high-intensity ground motion.

Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils, settlement, and load-bearing capacity failures below foundations.

The City has a low potential for liquefaction, according to the General Plan Safety Element.7 There is potential for liquefaction in the northwestern portion of the City, near the Sierra Madre Fault, and to the south of the City in the area of Puddingstone Lake, but not in the Project Area.8 Additionally, adoption of the Project does not approve any physical alteration of land or development. Future development in the City would have a less-than-significant impact on liquefaction because developments would be subject to compliance with applicable building codes. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and impacts would be less than significant. iv. Landslides, caused in whole or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing environmental conditions?
Within the City there is a potential for landslides in the hillside areas as sedimentary bedrock units consisting primarily of siltstones and shales are the least stable major geologic units within San Dimas.9 The
Project Area is located in a highly urbanized area, with the closest hillsides being located one block south of Arrow Highway between Cataract and San Dimas Avenues, outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area.

As the Project is located in a seismically active region, all future construction projects would be required to conform to all applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and any other applicable laws and ordinances with respect to new construction. As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly 7 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf. 8 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Hazards, Maps and Data, “Data Viewer,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/.
9 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vi sion/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-8 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed Specific Plan is located within a developed urban area, and Project components would be developed within areas that are largely covered with impervious surfaces. Construction activities associated with the Specific Plan, such as roadway, sidewalk, bicycle path, and water line replacement have the potential to disturb existing soils and expose soils to rainfall and wind, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, all construction activities involving earthwork must comply with existing erosion control requirements, including grading and dust control measures imposed by the City pursuant to grading permit requirements, and would be subject to review by the San Dimas Engineering Division for compliance with City policies, procedures, codes, standards, and other governmental requirements relating to land subdivisions, grading, and drainage. As such, compliance with City and State regulatory requirements would minimize erosion potential to a less-than-significant level. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, caused in whole or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing environmental conditions?
The adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan would not approve any development projects and would not result in structures located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. The City of San Dimas General Plan has identified a low potential for liquefaction in the City. The General Plan identifies ground shaking as a potential impact to the Project Area, resulting from the City’s location in proximity to the Sierra Madre Fault and other nearby faults of significance, as well as the potential for land sliding in the hillside areas, which lie outside of the Project Area and its immediate vicinity.

As the Project is located in a seismically active region, all future construction projects within the bounds of the Project Area would be required to conform to all applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and any other applicable laws and ordinances with respect to new construction. The Project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and thus would not result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse caused by the Project’s exacerbation of existing environmental conditions. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property caused in whole or in part by the project exacerbating the expansive soil conditions? Expansive soils are clay-based soils that tend to expand (increase in volume) as they absorb water and shrink (lessen in volume) as water is drawn away. Expansive soils can result in damage to structures, slabs,

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-9 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
pavements, and retaining walls if wetting and drying of the soil does not occur uniformly across the entire area.

The adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan would not approve any development projects and would not result in structures located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. As the Project is located in a seismically active region, all future construction projects would be required to conform to all applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and any other applicable laws and ordinances with respect to new construction including requirements in the San Dimas Building Code for soils engineering reports.

Therefore, the Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of its exacerbation of expansive soil conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project 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?
The Downtown Specific Plan area is served by a sewer system; septic tanks would not be utilized by the proposed Specific Plan. All development associated with the proposed Project would connect to and be served by the existing public sewer system for wastewater discharge and treatment. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project and this issue requires no further analysis in the EIR.

7.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Potential impacts during construction include grading and vegetation removal that could result in soil erosion, and operational impacts may include the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides as well as motor vehicle operation and maintenance. As required by State law, all new development projects within the city would be 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.

Compliance with the provisions of the NPDES and best management practices (BMPs) would reduce erosion and siltation impacts of future development. New development would be required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, Low Impact Development. Compliance with the NPDES and the implementation of BMPs, such as erosion, runoff, and sediment control would ensure that future development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-10 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
groundwater management plan. Because all future development will require compliance with the NPDES, implementation of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on hydrology and water quality.

Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Development pursuant to the Project would involve the construction of infill buildings with minimal excavation in an area in which the majority of sites has been previously developed. As such, the Project Area is not a substantial recharge area and future development would not substantially alter the potential for recharge. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? There are no streams or rivers within the Project Area. To the south of Arrow Highway is the upper portion of Walnut Creek. Though no part of it is within the Project Area, part of the existing storm drain system does outflow into Walnut Creek. The Project would not alter this existing drainage pattern.

Development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan may require grading, limited excavation to support the building foundations, and other construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing soils and expose soils to rainfall and wind, thereby potentially resulting in soil erosion. However, construction activities would occur in accordance with erosion control requirements, including grading and dust control measures, imposed by the City pursuant to building permit requirements. As referenced above in section 9(a), any Project initiated pursuant to the Specific Plan would further be required to have a stormwater management program, including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to NPDES permit requirements. As part of the SWPPP, BMPs would be implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation and erosion levels to the maximum extent possible. Based on the above and compliance with regulatory requirements, including the implementation of BMPs, impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Future development enabled by the Project would be subject to the City’s Low Impact Development ordinance which is intended to ensure that development and redevelopment projects mitigate runoff in a manner that captures rainwater and removes pollutants while reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flows. Accordingly, with compliance to the LID ordinance, the Project would not create or

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-11 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
contribute to surface runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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? Future development enabled by the Project would be subject to the City’s Low Impact Development ordinance which is intended to ensure that development and redevelopment projects mitigate runoff in a manner that captures rainwater and removes pollutants while reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flows. Accordingly, with compliance to the LID ordinance, the Project would not create or contribute to surface runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Any new development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan that includes drainage improvements would follow existing drainage patterns on site along with the implementation of drainage features to meet regulatory requirements as discussed previously. Since the Downtown Specific Plan area is not within a flood hazard zone, any occasional on-site ponding and overflows into the street drainage systems would not affect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Tsunamis are large ocean waves caused by the sudden water displacement that results from an underwater earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption that affect low-lying areas along the coastline. Per the California Department of Conservation’s California Tsunami Map, the Downtown Specific Plan area lies outside of the Tsunami Hazard Area.10 Seiches are large waves generated within enclosed bodies of water.

The presence of Puddingstone Reservoir and San Dimas Canyon Reservoir within San Dimas creates a potential hazard for seiches. However, these do not pose substantial risks to downtown San Dimas.11 As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The construction and operation of future residential development within the City could result in impacts to water quality and discharge standards. Potential impacts during construction include grading and 10 California Department of Conservation, “California Tsunami Maps and Data,” https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
11 See City of San Dimas General Plan, “Safety Element,” 1991.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-12 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
vegetation removal that could result in soil erosion, and operational impacts may include the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides as well as motor vehicle operation and maintenance. As required by State law, all new residential development projects within the City would be 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.

Compliance with the provisions of the NPDES and best management practices (BMPs) would reduce erosion and siltation impacts of future development. New development would be required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.13, Low Impact Development. Compliance with the NPDES and the implementation of BMPs, such as erosion, runoff, and sediment control would ensure that future development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Because all future development will require compliance with the NPDES permit and City’s LID ordinance, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and thus would result in no impact.

7.7 MINERAL RESOURCES
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?
As determined by the California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology, San Dimas is part of the Claremont-Upland Aggregate Production-Consumption Region and has significant Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 deposits.12 Additionally, there are no significant MRZ-1 resources and not enough evidence to make a finding about MRZ-3 deposits within the City. MRZ2 deposits within the City are located in across an area of 521 acres of majority urbanized land. The only significant remaining undeveloped land is the 194 acres of MRZ-2 deposits in the San Dimas Wash, north of and not within the Project Area. The MRZ-2 deposits in the San Dimas Wash are owned and managed by the City of San Dimas and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). There is no active aggregate mining currently within the City.
12 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Conservation Element,” accessed December 16, 2021. https://sandimasca.gov/departments/community_development/planning_division/general_plan/general_plan_sections.p hp.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-13 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
There are no significant major oil or gas fields within the City based on the State Division of Oil and Gas.

Past wells have been drilled, however currently there are no active drilling or wells for oil or gas within the City. Additionally, there is no active geothermal production within the City. The City does not contain any areas classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources as a Mineral Resource Area. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.
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? The City does not contain any areas classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources as a Mineral Resource Area. As determined by the California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology, San Dimas has significant Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 deposits, but these are located outside of the Project Area No potential impacts to known local, regional, or State mineral resources of value would occur due to adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Project Area would not be located within an area containing significant mineral resources. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.

7.8 WILDFIRE
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project is not located in or near State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Zones.13 The Project Area is located within an urbanized area of the City and does not include wildlands or high-fire-hazard terrain. The Project is a half-mile north of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that is designated as an area of Local Responsibility Area (LRA).14 As a buildout community in an urbanized area, the Downtown Specific Plan is not subject to substantial wildfire risk.

Future development would be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would be required to comply with existing policies and regulations to offset fire risks by incorporating project features such as building and fire code compliance, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of noncombustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety.15 The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future 13 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 20, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf. 14 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), “Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps,” accessed December 20, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 15 City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.51 Fire Code, accessed December 20, 2021. https://ecode360.com/SA5002.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-14 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
developments would be assessed at the time the developments are proposed. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
b. Due to the slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The Project Area is located within an urbanized area of the City and does not include wildlands or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.16 However, the Project is a half-mile north of a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that is designated as an area of Local Responsibility Area (LRA).17 Future development would be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement.

Specifically, individual projects would be required to comply with existing policies and regulations to offset fire risks by incorporating project features such as building and fire code compliance, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of noncombustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety.18 The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future developments would be assessed at the time the developments are proposed. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or on going impacts to the environment? There are no wildlands located within the Project Area. Future development would be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would be required to comply with existing policies and regulations to offset fire risks by incorporating project features such as building and fire code compliance, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of noncombustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety.19 The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future developments would be assessed at the time the developments are proposed. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? There are no appreciable slopes within the Project Area, nor would the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan result in any physical alterations or approval of any development projects. Additionally, there are no 16 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 20, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Planning%20di vision/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-safety.pdf. 17 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), “Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps,” accessed December 20, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 18 City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.51 Fire Code, accessed December 20, 2021. https://ecode360.com/SA5002. 19 City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.51 Fire Code, accessed December 20, 2021. https://ecode360.com/SA5002.

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of San Dimas 7.0-15 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
wildlands located within the Project Area. Future development would be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement. Specifically, individual projects would be required to comply with existing policies and regulations to offset fire risks by incorporating project features such as building and fire code compliance, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of noncombustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to ensure fire safety.20 The potential impacts related to wildland fire for any specific future developments would be assessed at the time the developments are proposed. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. 20 City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.51 Fire Code, accessed December 20, 2021. https://ecode360.com/SA5002.

City of San Dimas 8.0-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

LEAD AGENCY
City of San Dimas
Planning Division
Luis Torrico, Director of Community Development
Marco Espinoza, Acting Planning Manager
Anne Moore, Senior Planner

EIR PREPARATION
Meridian Consultants
Tony Locacciato, AICP, Partner
Christ Kirikian, Principal, Director of Air Quality and Acoustics Michael Levi, Project Manager
Nikki Heredia, Project Environmental Scientist
Monica Hernandez, Staff Planner
Lisa Maturkanic, Sr. Administrative Operations Manager
Tom Brauer, Graphics Coordinator
Interwest
Nick Pergakes, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning/Principal Planner Jennifer Williams, AICP, Senior Planner
IBI Group
Mike Arizabal, Associate Manager, Transportation Planning Cristina Martinez, Transportation Planner

City of San Dimas 9.0-1 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024

9.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources (CARB) Board website at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed July 2023).

California Code of Regulation, Title 24, sec. 3501 et seq.

California Department of Conservation, “California Tsunami Maps and Data,” https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “California Important Farmland Finder,” accessed December 16, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

California Department of Conservation, Geologic Hazards, Maps and Data, “Data Viewer,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), “Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps,” accessed December 20, 2021. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, accessed July 2023, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf California Department of Transportation, Earthborne Vibrations (1990), VII-27.

California Department of Transportation, Statewide Transit Oriented Development Study – Factors for Success in California, 2002.

California Energy Commission, “The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals” (June 2007), http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-008/CEC-600- 2007-008-SD.PDF.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (March 2006), 58.

California Legislative Information, Assembly Bill No. 197 (September 8, 2016), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB197.

California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 375 (September 30, 2008), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB375.

Caltrans, “California State Scenic Highway System Map.”

9.0 References
City of San Dimas 9.0-2 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
CAPCOA, CEQA & Climate Change (January 2008), p. 35. See also SCAQMD, CEQA Guide (February 2016), p. 6-1 [“from the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative”]; SJVAPCD, Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (December 2009), p. 4 [“effects of project specific GHG emissions are cumulative”]; California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009.

CARB, “Area Designations Maps/State and National,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm (last reviewed December 28, 2018).

CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

CARB, Diesel and Health Research, accessed July 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health.

CARB, Final Regulation Order: Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Facts, accessed July 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation.

CARB, Heavy-Duty DECS Installation and Maintenance, accessed July 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/heavy-duty-decs-installation-and-maintenancefrequently-askedquestions#:~:text=Level%203%20%2D%20The%20strategy%20reduces,Example%3A%20Wall%2 0flow%20filter.

CARB, Section 2485 in Title 13 of the CCR, https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckidling/13ccr2485_09022016.pdf.

CARB, Stationary diesel ATCM), Accessed July 2023.https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/stationary-dieselatcm#:~:text=Final%20Regulation%20Order%20Amendments%20to,compression%20ignition%2 0(CI)%20engines.

CARB, Top 4 Summary: Site Selection, https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour2.php. Accessed September 2023.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Valley Fever Maps, https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/maps.html#surveillance, accessed August 2019.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3).

City of Hayward v. Board Trustee of California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, 847.

City of San Dimas General Plan, Chapter VII: Safety, Available at:
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20de

9.0 References
City of San Dimas 9.0-3 Community Development Department Downtown Specific Plan Draft EIR June 2024
velopment/Planning%20division/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plansafety.pdf, Accessed February 2023.

City of San Dimas Housing Element, Page 1-1.

City of San Dimas Land Use Element, Page II-13.

City of San Dimas Municipal Code, Chapter 18.108, Scenic Highway Overlay Zone.

City of San Dimas Waste Disposal and Recycling,
https://sandimasca.gov/residents/resident_services/waste_disposal_and_recycling.php.

Accessed August 2023.

City of San Dimas, Community Development Department, Planning Division, “San Dimas Zoning Map (2011),” accessed December 16, 2021.
https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20de velopment/Planning%20divi sion/Zoning-Map.pdf.

City of San Dimas, General Plan Conservation Element, Page VI-16 City of San Dimas, General Plan, “Safety Element,” accessed December 22, 2021. https://cms8.revize.com/revize/sandimasca/Document_Center/Department/Community%20de velopment/Planning%20divi sion/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plansafety.pdf.

City of San Dimas, General Plan, Housing Element,
https://sandimasca.gov/departments/community_development/planning_division/general_pla n/housing_element_update.php. Accessed July 2023.

City of San Dimas, General Plan, Noise Element (1991),
https://files.sandimasca.gov/Document_Center/Department/Community%20development/Plan ning%20division/General%20plan/General%20Plan%20Sections/general-plan-noiseelement.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

City of San Dimas, Mitigated Negative Declaration for Allen Cataract Warehouse Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2023030132.

City of San Dimas, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.51 Fire Code, accessed December 20, 2021. http://qcode.us/codes/sandimas/.

City of San Dimas, Planning Division, “Historic Preservation and Sustainability,” accessed December 23, 2021.
https://sandimasca.gov/departments/community_development/planning_division/historic_pre servation_and_sustainability.php.

City of San Dimas, Utilities & Franchises: (sandimasca.gov)