SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 3.3-3
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.3.9 Utilities
To the maximum extent possible, utility connections would be provided from the closest/most efficient locations for the proposed building.
Sanitary Sewer: The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from the project site to the existing sewer network in Allen Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are subject to review by the City. The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for necessary approvals and ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
Domestic Water: New water meters would be installed as required to meet the demands calculated by the plumber for the project and in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Public Works Department. The project would extend existing water mainlines from Allen Avenue to the easterly edge of the site. Water would be provided by the Golden State Water Company.
Dry Utilities: Natural gas service would be provided to the project site by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and solid waste disposal would be provided by Waste Management (City of San Dimas, 2021).
Stormwater: The project site and surroundings have a west-southwest slope of approximately 1.5- 2 percent grade. Existing drainage onsite flows to the south and west. The two nearest storm drains to the project site are a 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in Cataract Avenue, and a 63-inch RCP in Allen Avenue (LACPW, 2021).
3.4 Construction Activities
3.4.1 Construction Schedule
For the purpose of environmental analysis in this Initial Study, it is anticipated that project construction would begin in May-June 2023 and would last approximately 11 months, ending around March 2024.
3.4.2 Demolition, Site Clearance
The existing single-family houses onsite would be demolished. Several of the houses onsite were built by 1964 and thus could contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP).
ACM and LBP would be abated, contained, and disposed of in accordance with existing regulations.
3.4.3 Tree Removal
There are 25 trees are onsite consisting of 16 California pepper (Schinus molle), three (3) Ash trees (Fraxinus spp.), two (2) Torrey pines (Pinus torreyana), one (1) Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), one (1) Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), one (1) Weeping Fif (Ficus benjamina), and one (1) Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides). Site clearance would involve removal of 23 trees; the two (2) trees to remain are one (1) Torrey pine and one (1) California pepper. The project applicant would apply for a tree removal permit for removal of any mature significant trees pursuant to City of San Dimas Municipal Code Section 18.162.110. A mature significant tree is any tree within the city of an oak genus which measures eight inches or more in trunk diameter and/or any other species of trees which measure ten inches or more in trunk diameter and/or a multi-trunk tree(s) having a total circumference of thirty-eight inches or more; the multi-trunk tree shall include at least one trunk 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
with a diameter of a minimum of four inches. The trunk diameter shall be measured at a point thirtysix inches above the ground at the base of the tree.
3.4.4 Onsite Construction
Construction activities would include demolition and site clearance, grading, utility trenching and installation, building construction, paving, landscaping, architectural coating, and any associated offsite work that may be required. Once earthwork commences, all of the various phases of construction would follow in sequence. The type of construction equipment utilized during construction is anticipated to include backhoes, excavator, skip loader, grader, water truck, concrete trucks, lifting crane, forklifts, , compactor, concrete truck, roller, and electric boom lift. For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project construction.
Safe access for construction workers would be maintained throughout construction. It is anticipated that approximately 16 to 20 workers would be onsite during the peak construction phases.
Table 3.4-1
CONSTRUCTION PHASING, EQUIPMENT AND SCHEDULE
Construction
Activity
Start Finish Duration Equipment Type
Backhoe
Equipment # (month) (month) (months)
Demolition and 1
1 of each
1 Site clearance 1
2 8
3 1
2 9
8 1
1 1
5 Excavator, skip loader,
Grading grader, water truck
Utility trenching
and installation Backhoe
4 concrete trucks
1 crane Building
construction
Concrete trucks, lifting
crane, forklifts 2 forklifts
Skiploader, compactor,
0.5 concrete truck, roller Paving 1
1 1
9 9
9 Landscaping 9
Architectural
coatings
1 Skiploader
Electric boom lift 10 11 1
Total 1 11 11
Construction staging areas would be provided within the boundaries of the project site. Construction workers would park vehicles onsite and construction trucks and equipment would also be parked and stored onsite.
3.4.5 Offsite Improvements
The project would include the following offsite improvements:
• The two driveways along the project boundary (one each along Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue) would be constructed to service the project.
• Utility improvements will include both wet and dry; domestic and fire water, stormwater, sewer, electrical, gas, cable tv, communication, and possibly more. Most of the utility improvements would 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
be limited to tie-in and connections to facilities under adjacent sidewalks and utility easements along Cataract Avenue and Allen Avenue.
3.5 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by applicable City of San Dimas departments and divisions responsible for reviewing land use application compliance with City codes and regulations.
City staff is also responsible for reviewing this IS/MND to ensure that it is technically accurate and is in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of San Dimas responsible for technical review include:
City of San Dimas Community Development Department;
City of San Dimas Public Works Department;
Los Angeles County Fire Department;
3.6 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
Project approval requires the following discretionary approvals by the City of San Dimas:
1. Zone Change (from Light Agriculture (AL) to Light Manufacturing (M-1));
2. Lot Merger (to consolidate the three (3) lots together);
3. Development Plan Review (for the building & site development);
4. Tree Removal Permit (for removal of any mature significant trees on site).
Table 3.6-1, Ministerial Permits and Approvals, identifies the permits and approvals required from either the City, other public agencies and/or quasi-public agencies (utilities) subsequent to the approval of the aforementioned Design Review.
Table 3.6-1
MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of San Dimas Building & Safety
Division Site Plan review and approval, and Building Permits.
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with the 2022 California Fire Code, 2022 California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and San Dimas Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic sprinklers.
Los Angeles County Fire Department
San Dimas Public Works Department
Golden State Water Company
Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements.
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide water supply connection to new development.
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide natural gas connection to new development. Southern California Gas Company 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Agency Permit or Approval
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide electrical connection to new development, and
proposed improvements to the existing SCE Easement on the eastern property line.
Southern California Edison (SCE)
Company
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA processes, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis is available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. (6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. (7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. (8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. (9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
4.1 Aesthetics
Less than
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099, would
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact the project:
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
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 a
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
X
X
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment features such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils.
Views are characterized by visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources.
Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity.
Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view.
High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas.
Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group.
Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
a) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene, or feature of interest.
The project site is located in an area of the City of San Dimas in the San Gabriel Valley which is characterized by flat topography and urban development. The City of San Dimas is located on a desert valley floor with the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Dominant natural visual resources in the project area are comprised of scenic vistas of the distant San Gabriel Mountains from the north-south running through public thoroughfares and open spaces in the vicinity of the project.
In general, existing views in the project vicinity consist of views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 1.75 miles north of the project site (Google Maps, 2020).
The project site currently has nine single-family residences and associated accessory structures. The project proposes the construction of a two-unit warehouse building totaling 63,749 square feet on two-levels. Unit One would include 23,193 square feet of warehouse space and 1,000 square feet of office space with a 2,000 square-foot mezzanine, while Unit Two would include 34,556 square feet of warehouse space and 1,000 square feet of office space with a 2,000 square-foot mezzanine. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 41 feet. The proposed building would have primarily tilt-up concrete walls with variations of light and dark grey colors, blue glass panes for the office mezzanine area, and a ten-foot screening wall at the truck court area. The site currently has an eight-foot masonry wall on the north and west sides of the property. The project site is adjacent to industrial land uses to the north, east, and west, and single-family residential land uses to the south.
The proposed new building would be consistent with the general character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural style, density, height, bulk, and setback. As mentioned above, some intervening buildings and trees block the view of the mountains. The proposed development would not obstruct views of distant mountains and hills for motorists traveling along nearby roadways. Therefore, the project would have no impact on scenic vistas. b) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway Program. According to Caltrans, there are no officially designated scenic highways within or adjacent to the project area, and no roadways near the project site are currently eligible for scenic highway designation (Caltrans, 2015), as shown in Figure 4.1-1, Scenic Highways. The closest official state scenic highway, State Route 39 (SR-39), also known as San Gabriel Canyon Road, is 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
Figure 4.1-1
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
approximately six miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, State Route 57 (SR-57), also known as the Orange Freeway, which is located approximately 1,300 feet to the west of the project site, has a portion designated as an official state scenic highway, but the designated section begins approximately eight miles to the south at its nearest point.
Therefore, due to the distance between the project site and the nearest state scenic highways, the project would have no impact on trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project in nonurbanized 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 a 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?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urban setting characterized by industrial and residential land uses.
As further detailed in Section 4.11, the project would not conflict with policies under the current General Plan Industrial land use designation or the proposed zoning designation of Light Manufacturing (M-1). Table 4.1-1 below provides the applicable policies from the City of San Dimas General Plan that pertain to aesthetics, along with a description of how the proposed project would comply.
Table 4.1-1
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF SAN DIMAS GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING
SCENIC QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Land Use Element. 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.
The proposed project would construct a high-quality
structure with tilt-up concrete walls and blue-glazed
glass that complies with all relevant development
standards, being similar in design and intensity to other nearby adjacent industrial developments. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
Policies:
Limit the intensity of non-residential
development through height limits, lot
coverage, setbacks, and other
appropriate standards.
Land Use Element. Goal L-9: Enhance a unified and high-quality visual image for the city.
The proposed project will underground all new utilities, utility drops, and all existing overhead utilities to the closest power pole outside of property lines. The project is not located near any railroad rights-of-way, but the project will improve abutting public rights-of-way to
include landscaping, sidewalks, and various other public rights-of-way improvements. The development is
designed to be architecturally cohesive with other
Policies:
Underground utilities to improve the
visual environment.
Beautify the existing railroad rights-ofway.
Cohesively direct future development
and promote the visual identity of the
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
General Plan Element Project Compliance
City’s important districts such as the nearby adjacent industrial developments and will create Town Core, Civic Center, and a harmonious visual identity for the neighborhood.
Downtown.
Preserve important view corridors.
There are no important view corridors affected by the
proposed development so the public views of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north will remain relatively
unaltered. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with this policy.
Source: San Dimas General Plan Land Use Element, 1991, p. II-42 and II-56.
As analyzed above, the proposed project would adhere to applicable aesthetic and scenic quality regulations and policies mandated by the City of San Dimas General Plan. Currently, the project site has nine (9) single-family residences, and views from surrounding developments include views of industrial developments similar in bulk, scale, and design to the proposed project. The proposed project would add a well-designed aesthetically pleasing building and landscaping on the site and therefore have a positive effect on the visual character of the site when compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the proposed Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone in the City’s Municipal Code, which would ensure that building height, setbacks, building design, parking stalls, and screening would be within the required threshold levels (City of San Dimas Municipal Code, 2020). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by low to medium nighttime ambient light levels. Street lights, traffic on local streets, and exterior lighting in nearby developments are the primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels in the project area. While the project is surrounded by industrial development in three directions, the project site is also adjacent to residential land uses across Allen Avenue, south of the project site (Google Maps, 2020).
The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site, including parking lot lighting.
Installation of exterior lighting on the building exterior, as well as proposed parking lot lighting, would be necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the project site. The new project lighting would be visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project’s proposed exterior lighting is expected to contribute to ambient nighttime illumination in the project vicinity. However, the proposed project would comply with the City of San Dimas Municipal Code § 18.128.120(H) Performance Standards, which states, “Emission of Heat and Glare. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat or glare in such quantity or degree as to be readily detectable on any boundary line of the property on which the use is located” (City of San Dimas Municipal Code, 2022).
Additionally, the building would include tilt-up concrete walls with different shades of gray, and blue glazed glass. None of the materials proposed would have a mirror finish or would be highly reflective.
Refer to Appendix A of this document, which provides the proposed project plans.
Adherence to applicable City Municipal Codes would ensure that new sources of light or glare would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, impacts from a new source of substantial light or glare would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
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 nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Codes § 4526), or X
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in the
conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
X
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (FMMP) was established in 1982 by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to identify critical agricultural farmlands and track if and how the lands are converted and used for other things. The proposed project is located in an area that FMMP deems as “Urban and Built-up Land,” which means it is land that has a building density of at least one building to 1.5 acres of land and is primarily used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, or other non-agricultural business (DOC, 2016).
Refer to Figure 4.2-1. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland for nonagricultural use. No impacts would occur.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Conservation Act of 1956, allows local governments to work with private landowners by negotiating an agreement to tax these landowners at lower rates if they restrict specific pieces of land to agricultural or open space use. According to the Los Angeles County Williamson Act Contract Map, the proposed project is shown as being on land identified as “Non-Enrolled Land”, land not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract and not mapped by the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP) as Urban and Built-Up Land or Water and does not contain any land under the specific jurisdiction of the Williamson Act (DOC, 2020a). The City of San Dimas General Plan identifies the proposed project area as “Industrial” for industrial uses (City of San Dimas, 2022). The site is currently zoned Light Agricultural (AL); however, no active agricultural operations are in the vicinity of the site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). A change of zone to Light Manufacturing “M1” application has been submitted as a part of this project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture uses or any Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The proposed project is located in a highly-urbanized setting and is zoned as “AL,” indicating that it is Light Agricultural (City of San Dimas, 2020). The definitions given by Public Resources Code (PRC) § 42526 regarding timberland, by PRC § 12220(g) for forest land, or by California Government Code § 51104(g) for timberland zoned for production do not apply to this type of zoning because forest and timberland do not exist there. Being in a highly-urbanized area, the project would have no impact on either existing forestry or timberland zoning, nor would it cause their rezoning. No impacts would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact
The project is not within a forest area and is located on land specified as Light Agricultural “AL” (City of San Dimas, 2020). The project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land because construction and other related activities would happen specifically on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss and/or conversion of forest land. No impacts would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
The proposed project is located on land zoned as Light Agricultural “AL”, but a change of zone request has been submitted to change to Light Manufacturing “M-1”, as previously stated, which allows Light 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Manufacturing uses. It is also surrounded on three sides by land with M-1 zoning. While the current zoning is agricultural, the site is currently used for single family residences, with no active agricultural use at the location. Therefore, the project does not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. No impacts would occur. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
4.3 Air Quality
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to X
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and ambient air quality standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO ), carbon dioxide (CO ), particulate matter (PM and PM 2 2 10 2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO ), lead (Pb), and ozone (O ), and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG), which 2 3 are ozone precursors. Since the proposed project would not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions,5 it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants. Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere.
The two major forms of NO are nitric oxide (NO) and NO . NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from x 2 atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO is 2 2 an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. A third form of NO , nitrous oxide (N O), is a greenhouse gas (GHG) (USEPA, 2022f). X 2 Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is its binding with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which decreases the ability of these cells to transport oxygen throughout the body. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium; high concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2022g). 5 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.07 pound per day during construction and 0.009 pound per day during operations.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate matter are now regulated. Respirable particles, or PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (i.e., 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for a sizable portion of PM2.5. In addition, particulate matter forms in the atmosphere through reactions of NOX and other compounds (such as ammonia) to form inorganic nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems (USEPA, 2022h).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon that have high photochemical reactivity. The major source of ROG is the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving and the use of household consumer products. Some ROG species are listed toxic air contaminants, which have been shown to cause adverse health effects; however, most adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form other criteria pollutants such as ozone. ROG are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher levels of fine particulate matter and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for air quality analysis and is defined essentially the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NO . Ozone creation requires ROG and NO to be available for approximately three hours in X x a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted.
Thus, O is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of O include eye 3 3 and respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and untreated rubber (USEPA, 2022i).
4.3.2 Climate and Meteorology
The project site will be located wholly within the South Coast Air Basin SCAB, which includes all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location.
The SCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD, 1993).
The annual average of total precipitation at the San Dimas Fire FC 95 meteorological station (#047749; latitude 34.105°, longitude -117.802°) (WRCC, 2022a), which is approximately 0.98 mile southeast of the project site, is approximately 18.38 inches, which occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Monthly precipitation averages approximately 4.12 inches during the winter (December, January, and February), approximately 1.53 inches during the 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
spring (March, April, and May), approximately 0.88 inch during the fall (September, October, and November), and approximately 0.063 inch during the summer (June, July, and August). The average high and low temperatures as recorded at Pomona Fairplex meteorological station (#047050; latitude 34.04°, longitude -117.46°) (WRCC, 2022b), which is approximately 3.58 miles southeast of the project site, are 77.5°F and 47.6°F, respectively. Average winter (December, January, and February) high and low temperatures are approximately 66.5°F and 38.93°F and average summer (June, July, and August) high and low temperatures are approximately 88.73°F and 56.4°F.
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
Table 4.3-1 shows the area designation status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed project site is in SCAQMD’s Pomona-Walnut Valley SRA (SRA 10), which is served by the Glendora Station, located about three miles northwest of the proposed project site, at 840 Laurel Avenue, Glendora CA 91741 (SCAQMD, 2022). All the criteria pollutants discussed in this report are monitored at this station. The ambient air quality data in the proposed project vicinity as recorded at the Glendora station from 2019 to 2021 and the applicable federal and state standards are shown in Table 4.3-2.
4.3.4 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the ARB. The criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, particulate matter (PM10 and PM ), sulfur dioxide (SO ), lead (Pb), and ozone. Presented below 2.5 2 is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
The Modified project site is in the San Bernardino County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), for whose air pollution control the SCAQMD is substantially responsible. Table 4.3 1 shows the attainment status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme)
Maintenance (Serious)
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Sulfates
) Nonattainment (Serious)
Maintenance (Serious)
Maintenance Attainment
Attainment Attainment
Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Sources: ARB, 2022a
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedances 2019
0.13 2020
0.173
0.138
97 2021
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.125
0.097
54 Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.103
Ozone (O3) # Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm 58 # Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
46 76 39
61 100
0.05 0.008
0 58
0.06 0.008
0 0.06
0.01 0
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Average (ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
Federal Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
State Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
#Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
Federal Annual Average (µg/m3)
97.9 ND
227.2
ND
121.5
ND
0 Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
ND 2
21.8 ND
28 27.7
ND
ND
97 State Annual Average (µg/m3) ND
Federal Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
State Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
#Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3
Federal Annual Average (µg/m3)
ND ND
75.1 ND
148.1
ND
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) ND
ND ND ND
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedances
State Annual Average (µg/m3)
2019 2020 2021
11.7 14.9 ND
Source: California Air Resources Board, “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics.” Internet URL:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/, (April, 2022).
ND - There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
4.1.5 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implement the programs contained in these plans.
Agencies involved include the EPA, ARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) every three years.
The 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2017b) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and on March 10, 2017 was submitted to the ARB (SCAQMD, 2017a) to become part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)6 (SCAQMD, 2017a). It focuses largely on reducing NOx emissions as a means of attaining the 1979 1-hour ozone standard by 2022, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the 2008 8-hour standard by 2031 (SCAQMD, 2017b). The AQMP prescribes a variety of current and proposed new control measures, including a request to the EPA for increased regulation of mobile source emissions. The NOx control measures will also help the SCAB attain the 24-hour standard for PM2.5.
4.3.4 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2).
Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full 24 hours. Figure 4.3-1 shows sensitive receivers in the project area.
4.3.5 Applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se; rather, it sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. 6 The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of local and regional plans, regulations, and rules for attaining ambient air quality standards. It is periodically submitted to the USEPA for approval. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits construction activity from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples, at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM10 high-volume sampling. The concentration standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rules are implemented and appropriately documented.
Other requirements of Rule 403 include not causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust that would remain visible beyond the property line; no track-out extending 25 feet or more in cumulative length and all track-out to be removed at conclusion of each workday; and using the applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 of Rule 403.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of this project will include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Among other applicable entities, Rule 1113 requires who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of architectural coatings use coatings that contain VOC less than or equal to the VOC limits specified in Table 1 of the rule.
Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program)
The purpose of this rule is to reduce local and regional emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and to facilitate local and regional emission reductions associated with warehouses and the mobile sources attracted to warehouses in order to assist in meeting state and federal air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. This rule applies to the warehouses located in the SCAQMD jurisdiction with greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space in a single building. Since the project site is 63,749 square feet, this rule would not apply to the project site.
4.3.6 a)
Response to Checklist Questions
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The SCAQMD (2019) has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans to achieve attainment. SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in Table 4.3-3. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Figure 4.3-1
SENSITIVE AIR POLLUTION RECEPTORS IN THE PROJECT AREA
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day)
Pollutant
Construction Operation
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
100
75 55
55 150
55 150
55 150
550
3 150
550
3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Lead
Source: SCAQMD, 2019.
Air Quality Methodology
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod (CAPCOA, 2021) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects.
Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air quality impacts. As some construction plans have not been finalized, CalEEMod defaults were used for construction offroad equipment and onroad construction trips and vehicle miles traveled. The modifications to CalEEMod defaults were the construction schedule provided by the client.
Applicable emissions controls specified in SCAQMD rules were incorporated in the analysis. They are not considered to be mitigation measures because they are mandatory for all projects.
For the purpose of this analysis, construction activities for the Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project are anticipated to last nine months and would begin in May-June 2023 and end in March 2024. There would be eight construction phases:
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading.
Building Construction.
Utility Trenching and Installation
Landscaping
Paving
Architectural Coating
There would be an overlap of construction activities among Landscaping and Paving. Table 4.3-4 shows the estimated project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions (Section 4.8) and noise (Section 4.13) analyses.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Phase Start End
Demolition January 1, 2023
May 21, 2023
June 1, 2023
January 20, 2023
Site Preparation May 31, 2023
Grading June 28, 2023
Building Construction August 1, 2023 December 31, 2023
Utility Trenching and
Installation January 1, 2024 January 31, 2024
Landscaping
Paving
February 1, 2024
February 1, 2024
March 1, 2024
February 30, 2024
February 15, 2024
Architectural Coating April 1, 2024
Note: At the time of preparation of AQ, GHG and Noise Analysis, it was estimated that site preparation and six subsequent phases of project construction would start in January 2023 and end in October 2023. However, the estimated start and end dates for those seven construction phases have changed to start in May 2023 and end in March 2024. This table shows the most recent version of the estimated construction schedule. There was no change in the duration of different construction phases, therefore, no change to the AQ and GHG data and analysis (included in Appendix B of this IS/MND) was necessary.
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The amount of emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time.
Regional Short-Term Air Quality Effects
Project construction activities would generate short-term air quality impacts. Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as fugitive particulate matter from earth working and material handling operations. Offsite emissions result from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from trucks hauling materials to the site and construction debris for disposal.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Maximum Emissions (pounds/day)
Construction Activity
ROG
25.7 75
NOx
18.6 100
CO
12.7 550
PM10
4.1 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2023 0.8
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by OB-1 Air Analyses with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.2) (CAPCOA, 2021).
Regional Long-Term Air Quality Effects
The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust emissions generated from project-induced vehicle trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as “energy source emissions,” would be generated from energy consumption for water, space heating, and cooking equipment, while “area source emissions” would be generated from structural maintenance and landscaping activities, and use of consumer products.
As seen in Table 4.3-6, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Pollutant (pounds/day)
Emission Source
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 1.44
0.00 0.34
1.78 75
0.00 0.01
0.37 0.38
100
No
0.01 0.01
3.77 3.79
550
No
0.00 0.00
0.91 0.91
150
No
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.25
55 Energy Source Emissions
Mobile Source Emissions
Total Operational Emissions
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds
Significant? (Yes or No) No No
Source: Calculated by OB-1 Air Analyses with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2021).
The operational emissions calculated were not adjusted to take “credit” for the emissions loss due to the demolition of the residences which are located on the project site. Therefore, this estimate would be considered a “worst-case” scenario.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact
Since the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the District recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Also, as discussed below, localized emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Localized Short-Term Air Quality Effects from Construction Activity Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions.
Following SCAQMD guidance (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The residences to the south of the project site, across West Allen Avenue are the nearest sensitive receptors, about 82 feet (25 meters) away. Localized significance thresholds for projects in SRA 10 were obtained from tables in Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008).
Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the proposed project.
The localized significance analysis determined that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
Table 4.3-7
RESULTS OF LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Maximum Onsite Emissions
(pounds/day)
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily emissions 11.3
165.8
No
10.5 759.5
No
3.4 7.2
No
0.7 4.6
No
SCAQMD LST for 2.58 acres @ 25 metersa
Significant (Yes or No)
aLST values were from SCAQMD table values interpolated corresponding to 2 acres and 5 acres for 25 meters (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, Appendix C)
Screening Health Risk Assessment
Given that the proposed project will not be an important source of toxic air contaminants, and will not be a receptor for significant TAC emissions from offsite sources, impacts from TACs will be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception.
Under this significance criterion, a significant impact is defined here as a situation in which a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance). Rule 402 broadly defines nuisance odors; in reality, it is imposed only in cases in which (1) complaints are received by the District, and (2) an inspector personally observes the offensive odor. Because the proposed project site is in a residential area, and unusually odorous materials will not be handled, Rule 402 complaints are unlikely.
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The proposed project is not a land use typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. It would involve the use of diesel construction equipment and diesel trucks during construction. In addition, project-generated emissions would rapidly disperse in the atmosphere and would not be noticeable to the nearby public. Therefore, the project would not generate a significant odor impact during construction. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4 Biological Resources
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
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?
X
X
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?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Methodology
UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. (UltraSystems) biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature, databases, agency websites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data, maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and inhouse records to identify the following: 1) habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to the project. The following data sources were accessed by UltraSystems for synthesis of data within this Initial Study.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map San Dimas Quadrangle and current aerial imagery (USGS, 2018).
The Web Soil Survey, provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; Soil Survey Staff, 2022).
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; CNDDB, 2022a).
Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2022a, b).
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2022a).
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022c).
National Hydrography Dataset, provided by USGS (USGS, 2022).
CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Habitat Connectivity Viewer (CDFW, 2022a).
Critical Habitat Portal, provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2022d).
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press (Sawyer et. al., 2009).
California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (Cal-IPC, 2006) EPA Waters GeoViewer, provided by USEPA (USEPA, 2022a).
The City of San Dimas’ (City’s) municipal ordinances, general plan and other documents were reviewed (City of San Dimas, 2006).
Plant and wildlife species protected by federal agencies, state agencies, and nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as “special-status species”. When plant and animal species that are federally or state listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species are discussed as a subcategory of special-status species they are referred to as “listed species”. When plant and animal species are protected by an agency but not a “listed species” and are discussed as a subcategory of special-status species they are referred to as 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
“sensitive species”. Some of these plant and wildlife species are afforded special legal or management protection because they are limited in population size, and typically have a limited geographic range and/or habitat.
Aerial imagery from the above-mentioned sources was overlaid with geospatial data by utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) software (ArcGIS 10.1) to identify documented observations of the following biological or environmental components within the project vicinity:
(1) Previously recorded observations within the project vicinity and geographic range of special-status species and potentially suitable habitats;
1. special-status vegetation communities;
(2) protected management lands;
2. proposed and final critical habitats;
(3) wetlands, waters of the State, and waters of the United States (waters of the U.S.); and
3. wildlife corridors.
On January 7, 2022, UltraSystems biologist Mr. Matthew Sutton conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the project site and a 500-foot buffer around the project site, collectively the biological study area (BSA). He assessed the land cover types, including plant communities, plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters (including wetlands), and wildlife corridors that occur within the BSA (see Figure 4.4-1). The determinations made in this section are based on the results of that survey (see Appendix C, Biological Resources Evaluation Report [BRE]). a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site is located in a developed, suburban/commercial area, and is approximately 350 feet south of Interstate 210 (I-210). The site is surrounded by commercial properties on the west, north, and east; south of the site is a large residential neighborhood. Although the site is less than two miles south of the Angeles National Forest, the project area and BSA provide low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species (including species listed by state or federal agencies as “candidate” or “sensitive” species).
Reconnaissance-Level Biological Survey Results
The project site occurs on relatively flat land and is partially developed with nine (9) existing homes mostly aligning the south and east borders, West Allen Avenue and North Cataract Avenue, respectively. In addition, the project site also contains a fallow grassy field with undeveloped soils in 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-1
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA (BSA)
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
January 2023Page 1103 – 1497
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
the northern area, several yards with ornamental turf lawns and trees, a patchwork of pepper trees that occur in clusters in the center of the project site, and some storage structures and work sheds near the center. There are several light industrial warehouses located west, north and east of the project site, and residential homes to the south. The project site consists of Urban land-PalmviewTujunga, gravelly complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes (Soil Survey Staff, 2022). Three land cover types occur within the BSA (see Figure 4.4-2).
Vegetation of the project site primarily consists of non-native ornamental and weedy forbs and grasses in the undeveloped field, ornamental vegetation in the residential yards and several ornamental trees, primarily pepper tree (Schinus molle), in both the yards and in between yards. Mr.
Sutton observed approximately 31 plant species throughout the BSA, only six of which were native species, and none of which were special-status species. Refer to Appendix G, Plant and Wildlife Species Recorded During the Field Surveys of Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report (BRE) for a complete list of plant species observed during the survey.
Six distinct wildlife species were observed during the January 7, 2022 field survey (one mammal species and five bird species), none of which were special-status species. The native bird species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and herring gull (Larus argentatus).
Additionally, gopher mounds of Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) were observed within the project site. All of the birds observed onsite are migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code § 3513.
No nests were observed on the project site during the January 7, 2022 biological survey. Onsite and offsite trees could provide suitable future or current nesting sites for birds protected by the MBTA.
This includes potential nesting sites for passerine species such as the ones observed during the biological survey.
Migratory birds are protected by the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, which render it unlawful to take migratory birds, and their nests, eggs, and young. California defines “take” as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” California courts have held that take includes incidental take and is not limited to hunting and fishing and other activities that are specifically intended to kill protected fish and wildlife. Over 600 species of migratory birds live in or migrate through California (CDFW 2018).
Trees on the project site as well as trees in the BSA could provide suitable nesting habitat for nesting birds protected by the MBTA. If construction occurs during the nesting season, indirect impacts on migratory birds could occur from increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction. This could adversely affect the breeding behavior of some birds, and lead to the loss (take) of eggs and chicks, or nest abandonment. Therefore, development of the project could potentially impact migratory birds. Implementation of pre-construction nesting bird survey is needed to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-2
LAND COVER TYPES
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
January 2023 Page 1105 – 1497
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The three land cover types that occur within the BSA are detailed below (see Figure 4.4-2, and refer to Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report [BRE] for a full treatment of land cover types).
Land Cover Types
Urban Developed/Ornamental: Urban developed lands comprise buildings, residential homes, pavement, other impermeable surfaces, and other developed structures and surfaces that cannot support vegetation. Ornamental land cover that occurs in urbanized areas, consists of ornamental vegetation (e.g., trees, turf lawns, shrubs, etc.) that is planted along the borders of buildings, residences, roadway margins, and other developed structures. Onsite urban developed/ornamental land cover consists of paved access areas, residential homes, storage units, and other permanent structures, and landscaped ornamental vegetation a(e.g., turf lawns, flowering plants, and trees). This land cover composes approximately 1.49 acres of the project site and approximately 34.98 acres of the BSA (see Figure 4.4-2).
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Semi-Natural Alliance):
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Semi-Natural Alliance) is an alliance listed in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, et al., 2009; CNPSb) and is composed of cool-season, annual grasses mostly introduced from Europe, and often intermixed with native and annual forbs, and occasional shrub species. This plant community makes up approximately 0.71 acre of the project site. The entirety of the mapped wild oats and annual brome grasslands plant community occurs within the project site. The onsite wild oats and annual brome grasslands occur in the northern half of the project site. Two non-native grass species, ripgut grass and foxtail chess are co-dominant on the project site and various grasses, and forbs also occur at lower cover, including London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), greenstem filaree (Erodium moschatum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora).
Pepper Tree of Myoporum Groves (Schinus [molle, terebinthifolius] – Myoporum laetum Forest & Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance): Pepper tree or myoporum groves (Schinus [molle, terebinthifolius] - Myoporum laetum Forest & Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance) land cover is characterized by one or more of the following species being dominant in the tree canopy: pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), or myoporum (Myoporum laetum).
On the project site, this plant community consists of twelve pepper trees, which are distributed around the relative center of the project site. This land cover occurs exclusively within the project site and composes approximately 0.40 acres.
Tree Survey Results
Mr. Sutton, an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist (WE-12790), surveyed all of the onsite trees on January 7, 2022. He observed 24 trees, and of those 19 met the criteria for mature significant trees detailed in Chapter 18.162, Tree Preservation (tree preservation code) of the City of San Dimas’ (City’s) Municipal Code. Of the 19 mature significant trees, 17 are proposed for removal. The tree preservation code requires developers to replace all removed mature significant trees. A more detailed discussion is presented in a forthcoming section below that discusses project impacts to local ordinances. Refer also to Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report (BRE) and Appendix C2, Arborist Report (both appendices provided in complete Appendix C) for a complete discussion of the methods, results, and recommended mitigation related to the tree survey. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Special-Status Plant Species With a Potential to Occur in the BSA Based on a literature review and query of publicly available databases (CNDDB, 2022a; CNPS, 2022; USFWS, 2022a, b) for reported occurrences within a ten-mile radius of the project site, a total of 21 special-status plant species were identified in the plant inventory: four listed and 17 sensitive (refer to Figure 4.4-3 for species in the plant inventory with reported occurrences within a two-mile radius of the project site and Appendix H, Special-Status Species Potential Occurrence Determination of Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report [BRE] for the analysis of all of the species in the plant inventory). Each species in the plant inventory was evaluated regarding their occurrence potential based on habitat, elevational and geographic range and the project site disturbances (Calflora, 2022; CNDDB, 2022a; CNPS, 2022a, b; Google Earth Pro, 2022; eFlora, 2022; Sawyer et al., 2009; Soil Survey Staff, 2022; USEPA, 2022; USFWS, 2022a, b, c, d, e; CIMIS, 2022).
Of the 21 total special-status species in the plant inventory, the analysis determined that two sensitive and no listed plant species have a low potential to occur in the BSA (see Table 4.4-1). The remaining 19 species have no potential to occur in the BSA, because either 1) the BSA lacks suitable habitat to support these species, 2) the BSA is outside of the geographic and elevational range of these species, 3) other factors preclude the likelihood of occurrence, or 4) a combination of one or more of the aforementioned factors. There were no special-status species observed on the project site during the field survey.
Special-Status Wildlife Species with a Potential to Occur in the BSA Based on a literature review and query of publicly available databases (USFWS 2022a, b; CNDDB, 2022a) for reported occurrences, within a ten-mile radius of the project site, a total of 43 specialstatus wildlife species were identified in the wildlife inventory, 12 listed and 31 sensitive (refer to Figure 4.4-4 for species in the wildlife inventory with reported occurrences within a two-mile radius of the project site and Appendix H, Special-Status Species Potential Occurrence Determination of Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report [BRE] for the analysis of all of the species in the plant inventory). Each species in the wildlife inventory was evaluated regarding their occurrence potential within the BSA based on habitat, elevational and geographic range, and the project site disturbance regime (Bolster, 1998; CNDDB, 2022a, b; CDFW, 2022b; Google Earth Pro, 2022; eBird, 2022; Howell, 1980; Jameson and Peeters, 1988; Sibley, 2000; USFWS, 2022a, b, c, d, e; WBWG, 2005; Zeiner et al., 1988-1990).
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-3
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.4-1
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Habitat
(Present,
Absent)
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat
Sensitive Plants:
Potential for Occurrence in the BSA
These plants have no official status under the ESA, the CESA, and/or the NPPA. However, they are designated as sensitive or locally important by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or local conservation agencies and organizations.
Low potential to occur.
There are recent reported occurrences (<15 This perennial herb years) of this plant within 10 miles of the project site (CNDDB, 2022) specifically
concentrated along San Dimas Wash, which is
located approximately 0.3 miles north of the
BSA. The project site contains gravelly soil that
creates marginally suitable habitat for this
species, however the soil has experienced high
levels of disturbance due to urbanization of the
area.
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
(=Horkelia
inhabits maritime chaparral,
coastal scrub, and cismontane
woodlands, growing in sandy or
gravelly sites.
Its bloom period is February to
September.
CRPR:
1B.1 mesa horkelia Yes
cuneata ssp.
puperula)
Low potential to occur.
The BSA does contain gravelly soils, however
the soils have experienced high levels of
disturbance due to development and other
related human activities. The BSA contains
primarily urbanized land, however degrading
the quality of available habitat. This species has
recent reported occurrences (<15 years) within
a 10-mile radius of the BSA, however the
occurrences are concentrated in areas greater
than six miles away.
This annual herb inhabits coastal
scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodlands, and valley and
foothill grasslands. This species is
found in sandy or rocky soils.
Its bloom period is April to June.
Chorizanthe
parryi var. parryi
Parry’s
spineflower
CRPR:
1B.1 Yes
*Notes:
The BSA contains approximate elevations of approximately 955 to 977 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Habitat
(Present,
Absent)
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the BSA and anadromous fish such as salmon. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened plants is published in 50 CFR §17.12.
California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CNPS Lists): The CNPS is a statewide, nonprofit organization that maintains, with CDFW, an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CNPS and CDFW officially changed the name “CNPS List” or “CNPS Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CRPR). This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CNPS and CDFW jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a collaborative effort and not solely a CNPS assignment. • CRPR 1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B - plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere: plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. All of the plants constituting CRPR 1B meet the definitions of §2062 and §2067 (CESA) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing.
It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Threat Ranks: The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) (as a decimal code) and designates the level of threats by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most threatened and 3 being the least threatened. A Threat Rank is present for all CRPR 1B's, 2B's, 4's, and the majority of CRPR 3's. CRPR 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of .1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California. However, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a CRPR. In addition, all CRPR 1A and 2A (presumed extirpated in California), and some CRPR 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.
.1 = seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-4
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: WILDLIFE SPECIES
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Some species for which suitable habitat may occur in the BSA, or for which the BSA overlaps with the appropriate elevation range and species range, were excluded because levels of human activity (e.g., noise, traffic, lighting) in the surrounding areas represents a threat to these species. Additionally, most of the BSA contains developed areas and non-native weedy species (e.g., wild oats and redstem filaree) that germinate and grow early in the growing season and may preclude the establishment of several later emerging native plant species, which may be required by wildlife species for foraging and nesting. Habitat fragmentation from development reduces the size of habitat patches containing contiguous stands of native vegetation; thus, certain species would not have sufficient foraging habitat or cover for nesting or shelter requirements. Finally, the BSA lacks complex vegetation communities.
Of the 43 total special-status species in the wildlife inventory, it was determined that no listed species have a potential to occur in the BSA. Five sensitive species have a low potential to occur in the BSA (see Table 4.4-2); however, the remaining 38 have no potential to occur within the BSA, either because 1) the BSA lacks suitable habitat to support these species, 2) the BSA is outside of their geographic and/or elevational range, 3) disturbances within the BSA that are typical of urbanized areas, such as paved or compacted surfaces, or traffic, preclude the likelihood of their occurrence, or 4) a combination of one or more of the preceding factors reduces their likelihood of occurrence.
There were no special-status wildlife species observed on the project site during the field survey.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) was determined to have a moderate potential to occur in the BSA because they are adapted to urbanized areas and there are several large onsite trees in which this species could nest and also hunt for prey such as passerine birds. Cooper’s hawk has a status of Watch List with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; CNDDB, 2022b). The CDFW Watch List includes birds identified in the California Bird Species of Special Concern report (Shuford and Gardali, 2008).
Cooper’s hawk is a medium-sized hawk that prefers to inhabit the edges of woodlands. These raptors are commonly sighted in parks, neighborhoods, over fields, and even along busy streets if there are large trees nearby for perching and adequate prey species such as other birds and small mammals.
They prefer to breed in more densely wooded areas than occur in the BSA, such as woodland openings and edges of riparian and oak habitat (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2022). Cooper’s hawks build nests in pines, oaks, Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces, and other trees.
Because construction of the project involves the removal of all but two onsite trees, and because Cooper’s hawk and many migratory bird species could potentially use the larger onsite trees for nesting habitat, there is potential for Cooper’s hawk, and other bird species’, nesting habitat to be impacted. The implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 (MM BIO-1), which requires that a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted just prior to the commencement of any grounddisturbing activities such as grubbing, clearing, grading, excavating or tree removal, would reduce potential impacts to Cooper’s hawk and migratory bird species to a less than significant level. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Table 4.4-2
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Habitat
(Present, Absent) Status General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the BSA Sensitive Wildlife:
These animals have no official status under the ESA and/or the CESA; however, they are designated as sensitive or locally important by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or local conservation agencies and organizations.
Sensitive Birds
This hawk inhabits broken
woodland and habitat edges,
Season of and is tolerant of human
Moderate potential to occur.
WL,
Accipiter
cooperii
This species is well-adapted to a variety of
urbanized environments. The project site
is within this hawk's range of recent
occurrences.
Cooper’s hawk Present concern: activities near the nest and is nesting seen more often nesting in
urban/residential areas.
Sensitive Mammals
Found in a variety of habitats,
such as semi-arid to arid
habitats, including conifer and
deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, annual and perennial
grasslands, palm oases, Low potential to occur.
chaparral, desert scrub, and
urban, but the species’
distribution may be
The BSA provides native and ornamental
trees as well as buildings that could serve
as suitable roosting habitat for this bat.
However, many of the habitats in which
this species is found such as palm oasis,
oak conifer, deciduous woodlands, and
coastal scrub are not found in the BSA.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western
mastiff bat
SSC, Present WBWG:H geomorphically determined,
occurring primarily where there
are significant rock features
offering suitable roosting
habitat. A cliff dwelling species,
Western mastiff bats can also be
found in similar crevices in large
boulders and buildings.
Western mastiff bats prefer
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Habitat
(Present, Absent) Status General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the BSA deep crevices that are at least 15
or 20 feet above the ground.
Low potential to occur.
This bat inhabits open grassy
areas in coniferous and
deciduous forest or near lakes,
open habitats or habitat
mosaics, with access to trees for
cover and open areas or habitat
There are CNDDB-reported occurrences
of this species within a two-mile radius of
the project site, but none more recent
than 1956. (CNDDB, 2022a) The BSA does
contain buildings and tree trunks that
could be used for roosting; however, there
is not enough potential prey such as
moths to sustain a bat colony. This species
may forage in the BSA but is not
CDFW:
Special
Animals
List
Lasiurus
cinereus hoary bat Present
WBWG:M edges for feeding.
Winter roosts include sides of
buildings and tree trunks.
anticipated to roost in it.
Low potential to occur.
Habitats: variety of habitats is
occupied by pallid bats,
including deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests form sea level up
through mixed conifer forests
Characteristics: night roosts
may be in more open sites, such
as porches and open buildings
There are CNDDB-reported occurrences
of this species within a two-mile radius of
the project site, but none more recent
than 1951 (CNDDB, 2022a). This species
is well-adapted to a variety of urbanized
environments; however, it is unlikely to
roost or form maternity colony within the
BSA due to lack of available foraging
habitat.
Antrozous
pallidus pallid bat SSC Present
Low potential to occur.
This badger is found in alpine
meadows to elevations as low as
Death Valley.
The requirements for suitable
habitat include sufficient food,
friable soils, and relatively open,
uncultivated ground.
This species has been recently observed
(<15 years) within 1 mile of the project
site (CNDDB, 2022a). The project site
does contain some open areas with friable
soils; however, there is not sufficient prey
source within the BSA for this species to
establish a den. The availability of open
ground in the BSA is limited as most areas
American
badger Taxidea taxus SSC Absent
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Habitat
(Present, Absent) Status General Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the BSA have undergone some disturbances
primarily associated with development.
*Notes
The BSA contains approximate elevations of 955 to 977 feet above mean sea level (amsl) The BSA comprises urban developed/ornamental, non-native grassland, and Myoporum laetum Forest & Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance Low = the BSA contains suitable habitat and is within the species’ distribution; however, there is a low probability of occurrence due to lack of optimal foraging and/or nesting habitat.
Moderate = the BSA contains suitable habitat and is within the species’ distribution and there is a reasonable likelihood of occurrence due to the presence of favorable foraging and/or nesting habitat.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Designations:
For some wildlife species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nesting colonies. For many species of birds, the primary emphasis is on the breeding population in California. For some species which do not breed in California but winter here, emphasis is on wintering range.
The species of special concern (SSC) designation thus may include a comment regarding the specific protection provided such as nesting or wintering SSC = species of special concern: a species of special concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal (fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal) native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as federally-, but not state-, threatened or endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or endangered, but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.
WL = watch list: this list includes birds identified in the California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali, 2008) report and are not on the current CDFW species of special concern list, but were on previous lists and they have not been state-listed under CESA; were previously state or federally listed and now are on neither list; or are on the list of fully protected species.
Special Animals List = these species occur on the CDFW Special Animals List (CNDDB, 2022b) but do not have other state status rankings.
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) Priority Matrix: The Western Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix is a product of the Western Bat Working Group Workshop held in Reno, Nevada, February 9-13, 1998. The matrix is intended to provide states, provinces, federal land management agencies, interested organizations and individuals a better understanding of the overall status of a given bat species throughout its western North American range. Subsequently, the importance of a single region or multiple regions to the viability and conservation of each species becomes more apparent. The matrix should also provide a means to prioritize and focus population monitoring, research, conservation actions, and the efficient use of limited funding and resources currently devoted to bats. H = High Priority ‘high’ designation represents those species considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. These species are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.
M = Medium Priority: These species warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats. A lack of meaningful information is a major obstacle in adequately assessing these species' status and should be considered a threat. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
If construction is anticipated to commence during the nesting season (between January 1 and August 31 of any given year, or as determined by a local CDFW office), a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no earlier than one week prior to construction.
To be in compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds, their nests, young, and eggs, the following measures will be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels.
• Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, burrows, during the breeding season would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites will be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts to migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during construction activities.
• If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance.
•
•
If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.
If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the preconstruction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site will be mapped on engineering drawings and a no activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors.
The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest.
Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near their nest. The buffer zone will not be disturbed by construction or other activity until a qualified biologist has determined that 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may begin within the buffer zone. •
•
If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the preconstruction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.
Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.
Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM BIO-1, the project would result in less than significant impacts on plant and wildlife special-status species.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? No Impact
The project site is situated on relatively level ground, and consists exclusively of upland areas; no ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers that could support riparian habitat were observed on the project site or within the BSA during the biological survey. The project site and BSA do not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The nearest sensitive habitat reported in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, which is located 0.28 miles from the BSA (CNDDB, 2022a; CDFWc) and would not be affected by construction or operation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts on any riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional state, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact
The project site is situated on relatively level ground on residential parcels surrounded by industrial, light industrial, residential, and commercial areas. Wetlands, including marshes, vernal pools, or other waters of the U.S. or State, were not observed on the project site or BSA during the biological survey. The nearest water of the U.S. and water of the State is San Dimas Wash, which is located approximately 0.22 mile north of the BSA, and north of I- 210. The project would not directly remove, fill, or interrupt the hydrology of state or federal protected wetlands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact
A wildlife corridor is a connection of habitat, generally native vegetation, which joins two or more larger areas of similar habitat that are otherwise separated by natural barriers, changes in vegetation composition, or land permanently altered for human activities (e.g., farms); and infrastructure, including roads, railroads, residential development, or fencing. Wildlife corridors may either be contiguous strips of vegetation and habitat, such as ridgelines or riverbeds, or intermittent patches of habitat or physical features spaced closely enough to allow safe travel. Corridors can be natural, such as a riparian corridor, or man-made, such as culverts, tunnels, drainage pipes, walls, underpasses, overpasses, or streets.
The BSA is densely developed. I-210 is located in the northern section of the BSA, and commercial, industrial, light industrial, and residential developments compose the remainder of the BSA. The BSA does not overlap with CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas, Natural Landscape Blocks, or other wildlife corridors (see Figure 4.4-5). The nearest Essential Connectivity Area is approximately 0.54 miles north of the BSA (CDFW, 2022a). There are Natural Landscape Blocks located approximately
0.52 miles north of the BSA and the Angeles National Forest is approximately 1.45 miles north of the BSA (Google Earth, 2022; CDFW, 2022a). Refer to Appendix C1, Biological Resources Evaluation Report (BRE) for a full treatment of wildlife corridors within the vicinity of the BSA.
Due to the urbanization of the region, movement of mammals that require larger home-range areas, dispersal distances, and dense vegetative cover would likely be deterred. However, predators (e.g., coyotes) and smaller mammals (e.g., raccoons [Procyon lotor] and striped skunks [Mephitis mephitis]) are known to use medium- to low-density residential neighborhoods, golf courses, and washes for hunting and foraging, using washes (natural and channelized), culverts, underpasses, and city streets for travelling, often but not necessarily limited to overnight hours when human activity decreases (Baker and Timm, 1998; Grubbs and Krausman, 2009; Ng et. al., 2004). Thus, the abovementioned, urban-adapted predators potentially utilize the project site as a wildlife crossing during foraging and hunting activities.
Taking into account the factors of distance from jurisdictional waters, the project would not interfere with or impede with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; however, the project would result in direct and indirect impacts to local wildlife movement within the BSA.
Nevertheless, because the BSA and surrounding areas are also suitable hunting, foraging, and movement corridors, species adapted to urban areas (e.g., coyote, raccoon, skunk) would be expected to persist in the project area following construction. Although wildlife movement corridors, and potentially wildlife nursery sites, would be impacted by development of the project, it is anticipated that such operations would have less than significant impacts on wildlife corridors or nursery sites. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-5
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Chapter 18.162 Tree Preservation (hereafter, tree preservation ordinance) of the City of San Dimas (City) Municipal Code states the goal of protecting and preserving mature significant trees, as well as “other trees which are determined to be desirable” (City of San Dimas, 2006). The tree preservation ordinance defines a mature significant tree as follows:
“any tree within the city of an oak genus which measures eight inches or more in trunk diameter, and/or any other species of tree that measures ten inches or more in trunk diameter, and/or any multi-trunk tree(s) having a total circumference of thirty-eight inches or more; the multitrunk tree shall include at least one trunk with a diameter of a minimum of four inches. The trunk diameter shall be measured at a point thirty-six inches above the ground at the base of the tree.”
Removal or relocation of mature significant trees must be approved by the Director of Development Services or the Development Plan Review Board. This approval is subject to conditions as deemed necessary to implement this chapter’s provisions. One condition that is stated in Section 18.162.069, Conditions Imposed of the tree preservation ordinance, is that each removal tree needs to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with replacement trees.
A tree survey was conducted at the project site on January 7, 2022 by UltraSystems biologist Mr.
Matthew Sutton, who is an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist (WE-12790- A). Mr. Sutton surveyed 24 onsite trees and several saplings (i.e., trunk diameter of less than 3 inches), none of which is of the oak genus, and all of which are proposed for removal by the project proponent (see Figure 4.4-6).
Of the 24 onsite trees, 19 meet the criteria for mature significant trees. The 19 surveyed mature significant trees consist of the following species and number per species: two (2) native bishop pine (Pinus muricata), three (3) white ash (Fraxinus americana), 12 pepper trees (Schinus molle), one (1) carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), and one (1) Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) [SelecTree, 2022]. Two (2) of the 19 mature significant trees, Tree MST1, a bishop pine, and Tree MST11, a pepper tree, will be protected in place, and the other 17 are proposed for removal. The remaining five (5) small, non-significant on-site trees and several saplings that were observed during the survey do not meet the criterion of a mature significant tree as described in the City’s tree preservation ordinance (refer to Appendix C, Arborist Report of Appendix C, Biological Resources Evaluation Report [BRE] for a full treatment of the tree survey’s results and recommendations).
In accordance with the City’s tree preservation ordinance, every mature significant tree that is removed must be replaced with two (2) 15-gallon box trees; the replacement trees need to be planted on the project site. In total, the project proponent needs to plant 34 onsite replacement trees to mitigate the impacts associated with the removal of the 17 mature significant trees in order to meet the requirements of the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Implementation of MM BIO-2 listed below would reduce impacts of development of the project to a less than significant level. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.4-6
TREE INVENTORY SURVEY
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-2: Mature Significant Tree Replacement
There are 19 trees on the project site that are designated as mature significant trees as per the City’s tree preservation ordinance (City of San Dimas, 2006), 17 of which are proposed for removal. The following species and number per species of mature significant trees are proposed for removal: one (1) bishop pine, 11 pepper tree, three (3) white ash, one (1) Mexican fan palm, and one (1) carrotwood.
Section 18.162.060 Conditions Imposed of the tree preservation ordinance states that mature significant trees must be replaced using a two-to-one ratio with trees that are 15-gallon box trees, or other replacement of equivalent value and size, or as the City deems appropriate. It further states that the replacement trees will be planted within the project site, unless the City approves offsite planting. Thus, to replace the 17 mature significant trees that will be removed during construction of the project, the project proponent will plant 34 fifteen-gallon box trees on the project site. All replacement trees need to be maintained by the project proponent for two (2) years and all other monitoring and maintenance requirements of this section of the tree preservation ordinance must be followed. Furthermore, granting of the tree removal permit is contingent upon meeting the conditions of Section 18.162. 070 Required Findings, of the tree preservation ordinance.
All trees will be planted after ground-disturbing activities such as grading, clearing, disking, grubbing, excavation, trenching, paving, mowing, heavy equipment compacting, and most of the construction activities have finished in the planting areas. Trees will be irrigated and maintained following best management practices (BMPs) for tree planting and care. A qualified landscape supervisor will observe the tree planting activities and document the tree health and survivorship during the planting period and the following two-year establishment period. If any replacement trees die or are declared unhealthy by a certified arborist during the period of two years following their initial planting, the dead or diseased trees shall consequently be removed and replaced at the cost of the project proponent as per the guidelines set forth in Section 18.162.100 Tree Maintenance of the tree preservation ordinance.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM BIO-2, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to removal of mature trees.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of, nor is it located within, any habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). For this reason, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP and therefore, no impacts on any HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur as a result of this project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5 Cultural Resources
Information from the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project, City of San Dimas prepared January 2023 (see Appendix D1), prepared by UltraSystems (O’Neil and Doukakis, 2023), has been included in this section.
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
f) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
g) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
X
X
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
h) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
4.5.1 Methods
A cultural resources analysis was conducted for the Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project site (refer to Figure 4.5-1) that included a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. The geographic scope of the cultural resource records search included the project site and an area encompassing a 0.5-mile radius outside of the project boundary. This search was initiated by Megan B. Doukakis and was conducted on November 29, 2021. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribes and tribal representatives to contact. The NAHC request was made on September 24, 2021, and a reply was received on October 27, 2021; letters were sent to the listed tribes on November 3, 2021 (see Attachment C in Appendix D1). Finally, a pedestrian survey of the project boundary was completed on January 7, 2022. The SCCIC records search was conducted prior to conducting the pedestrian survey.
4.5.2 Existing Conditions
Based on the cultural resource records search, it was determined that no historic cultural resources or prehistoric archeological sites have been previously recorded within the project site boundary.
Within the 0.5-mile buffer zone, there is one recorded historic era cultural resource but no prehistoric archaeological sites. The property is currently occupied by a group of buildings and other associated structures, comprising nine (9) single-family residences at 309, 313, 317, 321, and 325 West Allen Avenue and 907, 911, 917, and 929 North Cataract Avenue. These structures were evaluated by architectural historian, Bai “Tom” Tang of CRM TECH in August 2022 (refer to Appendix D3 Historical Assessment, Tang 2022). Tang concluded that the former Prehn family property does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and does not meet the statutory definition of “historical resources” for CEQA-compliance purposes. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.5-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WITH APE SHOWN
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed project on these buildings would not constitute “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” (PRC §21084.1).
No prehistoric resources were observed during the field survey.
4.5.3 a)
Impacts Assessment
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing high artistic values. Resources listed in, or determined eligible for, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered as historical resources under CEQA.
Similarly, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Specifically, the NRHP criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that: (a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.
A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as a result of a project or development is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that one historic-era resource described as historic refuse scatter (P-19-004646) was recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the area of potential effect (APE) of the project boundary (Table 1.3-1 in Appendix D1), but this resource is not recorded within the APE.
According to records at the SCCIC, five previous cultural resource surveys were conducted within portions of the one-half mile buffer zone of the project. All five of the studies are located outside of the project boundary. Two of these studies (LA-12623 and LA-12818) referred to primary resources 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
(19-000825, 19-002054, 19-192335, and 19-192336) that are not located within the one-half mile buffer zone of the project area (Appendix D1).
As a result of the field survey, nine single-family residences at 309, 313, 317, 321, and 325 West Allen Avenue and 907, 911, 917, and 929 North Cataract Avenue were identified within the project site.
These structures were evaluated by architectural historian, Tom Tang of CRM TECH in August 2022 (Appendix D3). Tang concluded that the former Prehn family property does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and does not meet the statutory definition of “historical resources” for CEQA-compliance purposes (Tang 2022). They will be demolished as a part of the project construction activities. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey.
Therefore, it is unlikely that historical and archaeological resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. However, grading activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic archeological resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 described below would ensure that impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 Prior to the commencement of grading or excavation, workers conducting construction activities and their foremen will receive Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training from a qualified archaeologist regarding the potential for sensitive archaeological and paleontological resources to be unearthed during grading activities. The workers will be directed to report any unusual specimens of bone, stone, ceramics or other archaeological artifacts or features observed during grading and/or other construction activities to their foremen and to cease grading activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist or Native American cultural monitor is notified of the discovery by the Superintendent of the project site and can assess their significance. The WEAP shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel of the area’s environmental conditions and the environmental protection measures that must be adhered to by all workers throughout the duration of project construction.
Training materials shall be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon completion of the WEAP, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended the program, understand all protection measures, and shall abide by all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel shall be kept with the construction foreman at the project field construction office and shall be made available to any resource agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the project later, the construction foreman shall ensure that new personnel receive training before they start working. The archaeologist shall provide hard copies of the WEAP presentation to the construction foreman.
MM CUL-2 If historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. An on-call qualified archaeologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). A Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The qualified archaeologist shall recommend the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area and afforded the necessary 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Construction activities may continue on other parts of the site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique archaeological resources takes place.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 above, potential impacts related to historical and archaeological resources would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact, object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of public interest or has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. The survey area consisted of nine residential lots with landscaped areas, fenced front and back yards, and open space, as well as several outbuildings. Ground surface visibility was an average of 20%. The pedestrian survey was negative for prehistoric cultural resources, features, or isolates.
It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological resources exist on the project site as determined by the cultural resource investigation conducted by UltraSystems, which included a CHRIS records search of the project site and 0.5-mile radius, a search of the SLF by the NAHC, and pedestrian field survey.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that there are no known prehistoric cultural resource sites or isolates recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project boundary (Table 1.3-1 in Appendix D1). The records search revealed that one historic resource, which included a very light-density historic artifact scatter, has been recorded within 0.5-mile of the project site, but none of the artifacts were located within the project boundary.
An NAHC SLF search was conducted within the project area. The NAHC provided a response letter dated October 27, 2021, which stated that there is a record documenting the presence of traditional cultural properties within this area, and to contact the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more information.
The NAHC also provided UltraSystems with a list of local Native American tribes (including the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation) and specific tribal representatives to contact regarding this project. Subsequently, ten representatives of the eight Native American tribes were contacted with a letter requesting a reply if they have knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they could provide and asking if they had any questions or concerns regarding the project. The contacted tribes are:
Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians
Gabrielino – Tongva Tribe
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Gabrielino / Tongva Nation Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
As discussed in Section 4.5.1, letters were sent to ten representatives of eight Native American tribes. An email was received on November 19, 2021, from Admin Specialist Monica Cano of the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, indicating that the project location is within their Ancestral Tribal Territory and that the Tribal Government requests to schedule a consultation with UltraSytems (UEI) as the lead agency. Mr. O’Neil responded on the same day indicating that our letter was regarding the cultural resources study to inform them of the project and that UEI is not the Lead Agency for AB52 consultation. The Gabrielino – Kizh Nation did not respond with information concerning the SLF site. An email response was received from Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) on November 3, 2021, indicating that the “proposed project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. However, due to the nature and location of the proposed project, and given the CRM Department’s present state of knowledge, SMBMI does not have any concerns with the project’s implementation, as planned, at this time project is not within an area of high sensitivity.” Mitigation Measures were also provided. Mr. O’Neil responded the same day that our letter was about the cultural resources study and to inform them of the project and that UEI is not the Lead Agency for AB 52 consultation. Mr. Nordness replied with the tribe’s official response which was the same as above.
Mr. Nordness responded via email to the USPS letter on November 15, 2022, indicating that proposed project is not located near known Serrano cultural resources. An email response was received from Mr. Joseph Ontiveros of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians on November 3, 2021, indicating that the tribe would defer any comments to Chairman Anthony Morales of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.
Following up on the initial letter and email contacts, telephone calls were conducted by Megan B.
Doukakis on March 16, 2022, to complete the outreach process following the response period. These calls were to the six tribal contacts who had not already responded to UEI’s mailing and emails. Three telephone calls were placed with no answer and messages were left describing the project and requesting a response. These were to Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Charles Alvarez, Councilmember of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation.
A phone call to Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair for the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, resulted in the tribal receptionist indicating that the Tribal Chair was not in the office and indicated that we would need to email the Tribal Chair if we wanted to contact her.
Chairperson Robert Dorame, of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council indicated by telephone on March 16, 2022, that the tribe does not have any information about the project area.
No further responses have been received to date.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both prehistoric sites and isolates on the project site. Based on the results of the records search and the onsite field survey, it is unlikely that cultural resources or tribal resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. However, grading activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic and/or prehistoric archeological resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 described above would ensure that impacts on archeological resources would be less than significant.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 above, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As previously discussed in Section 4.5 b) above, the project would be built on an area where the land is developed with nine housing lots with front and backyard landscaping enclosed by fences, open space, and several outbuildings. Tang concluded that the structures do not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and do not meet the statutory definition of “historical resources” for CEQA-compliance purposes (Tang 2022). They will be demolished as a part of the project construction activities. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological resources exist on the project site. The project proposes grading activities for the implementation of infrastructure that includes water, sewer, and utility lines. Grading and trenching activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3 and adherence to applicable codes and regulations would ensure that impacts related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 identifies procedures for the discovery of human remains.
CEQA § 15064.5 indicates the process for determining the significance of impacts on archaeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated artifacts.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the Los Angeles County Coroner shall be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3 above, potential impacts related to human remains would be less than significant.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
4.6 Energy
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
X
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d), “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. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be avoided.
Construction Impact Analysis
The following forms of energy are anticipated to be expended during project construction:
Diesel fuel for offroad equipment (gallons).
Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kilowatt-hours [kWh]).
Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal (gallons).
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers' travel to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering building materials to the project site.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB's) anti-idling regulations. ARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
Fueled Fleets regulation (ARB, 2016) would also apply. Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal government. Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.
Electricity
Electricity is supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison (SCE), which provides electricity to the City of San Dimas. SCE provides electricity to the project site from existing electrical service lines.
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
Due to the fact that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project construction is speculative.
Lighting used during project construction would comply with Title 24 standards and requirements (such as wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance with applicable City of San Dimas Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the primary distributor of retail and wholesale natural gas across Southern California, including the City of San Dimas. SoCalGas provides services to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers, and also provides gas for electric generation customers. The proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area without any major impact on overall system capacity, service to existing customers or the environment.
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a demand for natural gas during project construction.
Both construction and operation of the project would lead to the consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources, committing such resources to uses that future generations would be unable to reverse. The new development would require the commitment of resources that include (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during project operations related to truck traffic, lighting and equipment operation, space and water heating, water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
employees. Project operation energy usage was estimated by CalEEMod as part of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses.7
The following forms of energy expended during project operation were quantified:
Onroad motor vehicle traffic (gasoline and diesel fuel) Electricity for the proposed commercial uses, street lighting, space and water heating, and conveyance and treatment of water.
Natural gas for heating.
Estimated project operational energy usage is shown in Table 4.6-1.
The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project.
However, the use of such resources would be reduced when compared to what they would be in the absence of complying with the CALGreen Code. Therefore, energy consumption would not result in a substantial increase in energy production for energy providers and the energy demand associated with the project would be less than significant.
Table 4.6-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Use (Per Energy Type Units Value
16,734
1,364
Employeea)
Gallons gasoline/year
Gallons diesel/year
258 Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
(Fuel)b
21 Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year
1,000 BTU per year
221,179
49,664.1
3,403
Natural Gas Use 764
a Based upon estimated jobs of 65; see Section 4.14.
b Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022); see Appendix B.
Natural Gas Use and Electricity Use calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0).
Continued use of energy resources is consistent with the anticipated growth within the city and the general vicinity and would not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase in energy production for the energy provider. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the project would be less than significant.
7 See Section 4.3 (Air Quality), Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and Appendix B. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact
Title 24
The proposed project would be in compliance with the California Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), which includes mandatory measures for nonresidential site development, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. It would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 standards.
Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low-E coating on windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Code. CALGreen requires new structures to incorporate a variety of mandatory energyefficiency and water-efficiency features.
Senate Bill 100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045 (CEC, 2021). In 2021, 43% of the power SCE delivered to customers is estimated to have come from carbon-free sources, including renewables portfolio standard eligible resources such as wind and solar, along with other carbon-free sources such as large hydroelectric and nuclear power (Edison International, 2021). As the proposed project would be powered by the existing electricity grid (SCE), the project would eventually be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 (60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045) and would not conflict with this statewide plan (Senate Bill 100 Joint Agency Report, 2021). The City of San Dimas has not adopted specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plans with which the project could comply. Nonetheless, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7 Geology and Soils
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) 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
X
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? X
X
c) 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) 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?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X
The technical analysis below is based on the geotechnical report completed by Sladden Engineering on January 14, 2022 (refer to Appendix C) for the proposed project. The geotechnical report details 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
the subsurface conditions and, if applicable, gives recommendations for site preparation and design to ensure the safe construction and operation of the proposed project. 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,650 years (i.e., during the Holocene Period).
The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California; however, as detailed in the geotechnical report, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone (refer to Figure 4.7-1 below) (Sladden Engineering, 2019, p. 5). Although the nearest fault is located about 1.25 miles away from the project site and is capable of a magnitude 7.2 earthquake, the geotechnical report considers the potential for damage due to direct fault rupture unlikely.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
As mentioned above, the nearest fault to the project site is approximately 1.25 miles away and would be capable of a magnitude 7.2 earthquake. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults (Sladden Engineering, 2019, p. 4).
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including the current California Building Code (CBC; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2).
The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the site. The geotechnical report estimates site-specific seismic parameters for use in project design. The project design would implement the recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report, which would minimize the potential risks associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Figure 4.7-1
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
iii)
Liquefaction is the sudden decrease in the strength of cohesionless soils due to dynamic or cyclic shaking. Saturated soils behave temporarily as a viscous fluid (liquefaction) and consequently lose their capacity to support the structures built on them. The potential for liquefaction decreases with increasing clay and gravel content but increases as the ground acceleration and duration of shaking increase. Liquefaction potential has been found to be the greatest where the groundwater level and loose sands occur within 50 feet of the ground surface.
The geotechnical report details that the project site is within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. Groundwater was not encountered at the maximum explored depth of 17 feet Bgs during the field investigation. The geotechnical report concluded that risks from liquefaction onsite are negligible (Sladden Engineering, 2022, p. 7). Additionally, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including the current CBC, and implement the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report, which would minimize the potential risks associated with liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition.
A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by several factors, acting together or alone. Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to barely stable slopes, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions.
The topography within the project site is relatively level with a southwest slope of less than two percent. There are no steep slopes or hills on the project site; the nearest hills are the San Gabriel Mountains, the foothills of which begin approximately 0.75 miles north of the project site.
Project development would not exacerbate landslide hazards, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) requires construction projects that may potentially result in soil erosion to implement best management practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff. If one or more acres of soil would be disturbed, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required to be obtained. NPDES permits establish enforceable limits on discharges, require effluent monitoring, designate reporting requirements, and require construction and post-construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce point and non-point source discharges of pollutants, including soil (SWRCB, 2020). 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As further detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit prior to project construction. This NPDES permit would require the Legally Responsible Person (LRP), such as the project owner, to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to grounddisturbing construction activities to identify construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce soil erosion and pollutants in stormwater, and non-stormwater discharges (including soil erosion by wind) to stormwater sewer systems and other drainages. The LRP would upload Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online Stormwater MultiApplication and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), site map, risk assessment, SWPPP, post-construction water balance, annual fee, and signed certification statement by the LRP attesting to the validity of the information. These preventive measures during construction are intended to eliminate or reduce soil erosion. Therefore, construction-related impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Operation
The project site is located within an area that is highly urbanized and has flat topography. Impacts from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant because the proposed project must be designed to minimize erosion to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the proposed project would create a larger area of impermeable surfaces compared to the existing residential uses.
Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
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? Less than Significant Impact
Hazards onsite arising from liquefaction and landslides are considered minimal, as substantiated above in Section 4.7.a.iii and -iv, respectively.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the rapid downslope movement of surface sediment, in a fluid-like flow, due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Hazards onsite related to lateral spreading are considered minimal due to the negligible potential for liquefaction in subsurface site soils. Therefore, impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. The project site is not in an area of ground subsidence mapped by the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2022). Project development would not exacerbate hazards related to ground subsidence, and impacts would be less than significant.
Collapse
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact with the addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess (windblown sediment) deposits. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths greater than those reached by typical rain events. This saturation eliminates the clay bonds holding the soil grains together. Similar to expansive soils, collapsible soils result in structural damage such as cracking of the foundation, floors, and walls in response to the settlement.
The geotechnical investigation report determined that existing shallow soils onsite are unsuitable for supporting the proposed warehouse building, and recommended the removal of existing soils at least 4 feet below the existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper (Sladden, 2022, p. 7). Project design, site grading, and construction would comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and impacts related to collapsible soils would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with high to very high percentages of clay. Design provisions such as adequate reinforcements, deeper foundations or other measures may help alleviate the effects of soil expansion but may not eliminate the problem.
The geotechnical investigation included a test of shallow soil for expansion index which yielded an expansion index of 1, indicating very low expansion potential (Sladden Engineering, 2022, Appendix B).
The project would not be located on expansive soil, and project-related impacts resulting from expansive soils would be less than significant. No mitigation is proposed. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Therefore, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project site boundary is underlain by Quaternary gravel (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 1999). This deposit consists of gravel and sand of major streams, and alluvial fan debris from the San Gabriel Mountains. The Quaternary Period extends from 2.58 million years before the present to the present 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
(GSA, 2018). A paleontology records search by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County yielded records of 10 fossil localities in the project region listed below in Table 4.7-1.
Table 4.7-1
PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
Locality
Number Location Formation Taxa Depth
Surface
Surface
Sturgeon fish First bike path diverging south
fromVia Verde Road in Bonelli
Regional County Park
LACM VP 6166,
6172, 7471
(Prionurus); Mola
(Molidae), other
unidentified fish
Puente Formation
Ridge overlooking the southwestern
bank ofPuddingstone Reservoir
Puente Formation Extinct bony fish
(shale) LACM VP 6173 (Etringus)
Mako shark
(Isurus planus)
Puente Formation Invertebrates
LACM VP 6167 Puddingstone Dam
LACM IP 4723 Puddingstone Dam
Puente Formation Unknown
Unknown
Unknown (light
brown shale with
interbeds of very
coarse brown
W of the intersection of English Rd &
Peyton Dr, Chino
Horse (Equus),
camel (Camelops) Bgs
15-20 ft LACM VP 1728
LACM VP 7508
sand; Pleistocene)
Ground sloth
(Nothrotheriops);
elephant family
(Proboscidea);
horse (Equus)
Near the intersection of Vellano Club
Dr. and Palmero Dr., Oakcrest
Development; N of Serrano Canyon,
Chino Hills
Unknown
formation
(Pleistocene)
Unknown
LACM VP 7268, Sundance Condominiums, S of Los
7271 Serranos Golf
Unknown
(Pleistocene) Horse (Equus) Unknown
Source: Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, 2022 Any substantial excavations below the uppermost layers should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Grading and excavation activities associated with the development of the project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. In the event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not significantly affected.
Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, prior to the issuance of building/grading permit, to remain on-call during project ground-disturbing activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities within 50 feet of the find and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The paleontologist shall curate the find(s) at an accredited repository for paleontological resources such as the Western Science Center near Hemet or the San Bernardino County Museum. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 described above, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
X
4.8.1 GHG Constituents Introduction
Constituent gases that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are called greenhouse gases, analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. GHGs play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation budget by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which would otherwise escape into space. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHG, the Earth’s surface would be about 34°F cooler. This natural phenomenon, known as the “Greenhouse Effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. However, anthropogenic emissions of these GHGs, more than natural ambient concentrations, are responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect, and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate known as global warming or climate change (CalEPA, 2006).
Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as carbon dioxide (CO , methane (CH , nitrous oxide (N O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons 2) 4) 2 (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).8 Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming potential” (GWP), which is a value used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are based on the heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). Methane (CH ) is estimated to have a GWP of 25 over 100 years. carbon dioxide (CO ) has a 4 2 GWP of 1 and nitrous oxide (N O) has a GWP 298 times that of CO for a 100-year timescale. (USEPA, 2 2 2022d). “Carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) emissions are calculated by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP and then summing the products.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a clear, colorless, and odorless gas consisting of molecules made up of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. Fossil fuel combustion is the main human-related source of CO2 emissions; electricity generation and transportation are first and second in the amount of CO2 emissions, respectively. Carbon dioxide is the basis of GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. 8 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Methane (CH4) is a clear, colorless gas, and is the main component of natural gas. Anthropogenic sources of CH4 are fossil fuel production, biomass burning, waste management, and mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel. Wetlands are responsible for most of the natural CH4 emissions (USEPA, 2019). As mentioned above, within a 100-year period CH4 is 25 times more effective in trapping heat than is CO2.
Nitrous oxide (N O) is a colorless, clear gas, with a slightly sweet odor. N O has both natural and 2 2 human-related sources and is removed from the atmosphere mainly by photolysis or breakdown by sunlight, in the stratosphere. The main human-related sources of N2O in the United States are agricultural soil management (synthetic nitrogen fertilization), mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. Nitrous oxide is also produced from a wide range of biological sources in soil and water (USEPA, 2019). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), within a 100-year span, N2O is 298 times more effective in trapping heat than is CO2 (IPCC, 2007).
4.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
Neither the City, the SCAQMD nor the State CEQA Guidelines Amendments has adopted specific quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a project’s GHG emissions. Nonetheless, § 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines serves to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHGs. As required in § 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis includes an impact determination based on the following: (1) an estimate of the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project; (2) a qualitative analysis or performance based standards; (3) a quantification of the extent to which the project increases GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; and (4) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
The City of San Dimas does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans (SCAQMD, 2008a). The SCAQMD estimated that a threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year for all non-industrial projects would help subject 90% of all GHG emissions to CEQA analysis (SCAQMD, 2010). The City has selected this value as a significance criterion which has been supported by substantial evidence. c) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
Methodology
GHG emissions would come from both construction and operation of the proposed project.
Construction of the 2-unit warehouse would result in temporary emissions of GHGs from fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment and by onroad vehicle traffic (i.e., worker commute and delivery truck trips). Operational direct GHG emissions would come from onroad mobile sources and onsite area sources, such as landscaping. Indirect GHG emissions would come from energy use, 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
water supply, wastewater, and solid waste.9 A detailed summary of the assumptions and the model data used to estimate the project’s potential GHG emissions is provided in Appendix B2.
Short-term GHG emissions are those construction emissions that do not recur over the life of the project. The construction phases included in this analysis are grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, demolition, landscaping utility trenching/installation and site preparation.
Emissions are from offroad construction equipment and onroad travel, such as worker commuting; vendor deliveries; and truck hauling of soil, building materials and construction and demolition waste.
Other GHG emissions would occur continually after buildout. GHGs are emitted from buildings because of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources.
Combustion of carbon-based fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions. The project’s primary direct source of annual GHG emissions will be onroad mobile sources. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; when produced offsite, these emissions are indirectly associated with the project.
Indirect GHG emissions also result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. A final indirect GHG emission source is decomposition of organic waste that is generated by the project and transported to landfills.
Temporary construction and long-term operational GHG emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0 (CAPCOA, 2022). CalEEMod is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects. Operational emissions consider area emissions, such as space heating, from energy use associated with land uses, and from the vehicle trips associated with the land uses. To assess the overall lifetime project GHG emissions, the SCAQMD developed an Interim Guidance (SCAQMD, 2008a, p. 3-10) that recommends that construction emissions should be amortized over the life of the project, defined in the guidance as 30 years. Annualized GHG emissions are then added to the operational emissions and the sum is compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold.
Construction
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and offsite hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as project-generated. As explained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non-speculative onsite construction activities, and offsite hauling and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are identified on an annual basis.
The proposed project would include the construction and operation of a 63,749-square-foot, twounit warehouse building. Each construction phase involves the use of a different mix of construction equipment and therefore has its own distinct GHG emissions characteristics. A generalized construction schedule was supplied by the applicant. CalEEMod defaults were used otherwise. 9 Indirect emission sources are those for which the project is responsible, but which are not located at the project site. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Construction emissions occur both onsite and offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment. Offsite emissions result from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from vendors and visitors to the site.
CalEEMod estimated construction GHG emissions to be 165.7 MT of CO2e. The 30-year amortized value is 5.52 MT per year. Table 4.8-1 describes the construction related GHG emissions for this project.
Table 4.8-1
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Annual Emissions (MT/year)
Year/Phase
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2023 162.2 0.03 0.00911 165.7
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Operation
Mobile sources account for about 53% of the total operational emissions. With the addition of the amortized construction emissions, the total project GHG emissions would be 277.17 MT per year, less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. Table 4.8-2 breaks down the GHG emissions for each source related to the warehouse project.
Table 4.8-2
PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated Project Generated
Emissions Source CO2e Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Area Sources
Energy
2.43 42.1
Mobile 142.7
30.13 54.29
5.52 Waste
Water
Construction Emissionsa
Total 277.17
a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those resulting from the operation of the project.
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
d) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact
The City of San Dimas has not adopted a GHG emissions reduction plan and thus it relies on the implementation of state and regional plans for reducing GHG emissions throughout the state, including San Dimas. A GHG inventory prepared by CTG Energetics, Inc. (2010) predicts local decreases in GHG emissions if state actions such as renewable portfolio standards, CAFE standards, low carbon fuel standards and Title 24 code updates are implemented.
The City of San Dimas GHG Inventory provides information on the activities that cause emissions and removals, as well as background on the methods used to make the calculations. Although it covers a large number of interrelated topics, the following discussion focuses on those aspects that (1) seek to reduce GHG emissions that result from municipal and private sector activities in the city and (2) have potential relevance to the proposed project. The GHG inventory has the following relevant targets in the reduction of GHG emissions and fossil fuels:
State Action Assumptions
California has established a number of mandates that will help reduce GHG emissions by 2020. These actions will reduce fossil fuel combustion and therefore reduce GHG emissions throughout the state, including in San Dimas.
California Renewable Portfolio Standard
•
•
The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Adopted AB 32 Scoping Plan makes it clear that implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a foundational element of the State’s emissions reduction plan.
The scenario with 2020 State mandates considered in this analysis assumes that utilities will reduce the carbon intensity of delivered electricity equivalent to meeting the 33% RPS goal by 2020.
These actions will reduce fossil fuel combustion and therefore reduce GHG emissions.
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard
•
•
In 2007, Executive Order S-1-07 was issued requiring the establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels. This statewide goal requires that California’s transportation fuels reduce their carbon intensity by at least 10 percent by 2020.
In accordance with the Scoping Plan, this analysis incorporates the modified reduction potential for the LCFS.
These actions will reduce the amount of carbon emitted by fossil fuel combustion and therefore reduce transportation GHG emissions.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards • In 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced new light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards.
• The EPA forecasts that these standards will reduce GHG emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by approximately 21 percent from 2030 business-as-usual.
These actions will reduce fossil fuel combustion and therefore reduce GHG emissions.
Title 24 Code Cycles
•
•
California’s Title 24 Building Energy Code is updated every three years. Due to the implementation of new Title 24 Codes, there will be a reduction in new residential and nonresidential building emissions.
Based on the growth projections provided by San Dimas, the City can expect about 3.5% reduction from total city-wide baseline 2020 emissions due to increasing Title 24 Code updates for residential and nonresidential buildings.
These actions will reduce fossil fuel combustion and therefore reduce GHG emissions.
As was demonstrated in Section 4.11, the proposed project would have no impacts in relation to consistency with local land use plans, policies, or regulations. The relatively low GHG emissions of the proposed project will not interfere with implementation of GHG reduction measures. Therefore, the climate change impacts of the project would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project
area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency X
X
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
The analysis in this section is based in part upon the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by AdvancedGeo, Inc., dated September 16, 2020 (Refer to Appendix D). The Phase I ESA presents information based on a site reconnaissance of the project area, historical developments 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
of the project site, and a comprehensive database search to determine if the project site contains Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).10
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Based on the Phase I report there is no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property.
Construction
Transportation of hazardous materials/waste is regulated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 26. The California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) enforce federal and state regulations and respond to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Emergency responses are coordinated as necessary among federal, state, and local governmental authorities and private persons through a state-mandated Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Due to the significant short-term risks to public health and the environment associated with hazardous waste management during the transportation of wastes, specific Commercial Hazardous Waste Shipping Routes are designated with the intent of minimizing the distance that wastes are transported and the proximity to vulnerable locations.
The proposed project includes the construction of two-unit warehouse facility totaling 63,749 square feet on two levels. Construction activities would be temporary and would involve transport, storage, and the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law; California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the City of San Dimas requirements. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that impacts associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction would be less than significant.
Operation
At the time this IS/MND was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed building was unknown.
For environmental analysis, the future uses onsite are assumed to be any of those uses permitted by the City of San Dimas’ General Plan land use designation of Industrial and the City’s Municipal Code.
During operations, the future tenant may require the routine transport of hazardous materials for maintaining supplies onsite and for disposal of waste offsite. Transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fires, or explosions.
The residences nearest to the project site are located along the south side of Allen Avenue, directly across from the facility. Since hazardous materials must not be transported through existing residential areas, the future tenant would propose routes that are surrounded primarily by existing 10 The term Recognized Environmental Conditions is defined in Section 1.1.1 of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, at or on a property due to any release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment (Converse Consultants, 2019. p. 1).
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
industrial land uses, to the extent possible. The City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial with areas designated as Industrial to the north, east, and west of the project site, Therefore, if any accidental releases of hazardous materials were to occur, they are anticipated to occur in the primary commercial and industrial areas and along roads leading to and from the project site.
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and implemented by Title 13 of the CFR.
Appropriate documentation would be provided for all hazardous waste that is transported, as required by existing hazardous materials regulations. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code requires businesses that handle more than a specified number of hazardous materials onsite to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers, regulatory agencies, and other interested persons (see mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 below). The business plan must include an inventory of the hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee safety and emergency response training.
Further, proper documentation would be required to identify which hazardous materials would be transported and which routes they would be transported along. As such, MM HAZ-2 (see below) would be implemented to ensure that the future tenant would provide proper hazardous materials transportation information.
In addition to the suggested mitigation measures, the future tenant would be required to comply with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the US Environmental Protection Agency, State of California, Los Angeles County, and the City of San Dimas related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, which would reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials exposure to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be adopted to minimize or avoid impacts related to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials:
MM HAZ-1 In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the lease agreement with the future tenant shall require the tenant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which would include an inventory of all hazardous materials used, stored, or otherwise managed onsite to the Los Angeles County Fire Department – Health Hazardous Materials Division. The recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be included in the lease agreement (signed by the tenant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the tenant.
MM HAZ-2 In the event that the future tenant will handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity threshold, the lease agreement with the future tenant shall require the tenant, in coordination with the City of San Dimas, to identify routes along which hazardous materials may routinely be transported. If essential facilities such as schools, hospitals, child care centers, or other facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, the future tenant shall develop an emergency response plan that can be implemented in the event of an unauthorized release of 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
hazardous materials. The recommendations of the Emergency Response Plan would be included in the lease agreement (signed by the future tenant) as mandatory measures required to be implemented by the future tenant.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with the established regulatory framework, compliance with mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would provide for the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements, to ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding hazardous materials are minimized or eliminated. Impacts to the public or the environment resulting from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant after mitigation.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
As mentioned above, the Phase I ESA did not discover any evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property. Additionally, the construction of the proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding the safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant during construction.
Operation
As the future tenant(s) of the proposed project is not known at this time, there is a potential that the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during operation through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Typical incidents that could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials involve: leaking storage tanks; spills during transport; inappropriate storage; inappropriate use; and/or natural disasters. Accidental releases such as these could cause contamination of soil, surface water, groundwater, and toxic fumes. Depending on the nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
Chemicals and wastes stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks would follow guidelines mandated by federal and state agencies. Aboveground tanks storing hazardous chemicals would have secondary containment to collect fluids that are accidentally released. Underground storage tanks and connecting piping would be double-walled and would have monitoring devices with alarms installed to constantly monitor for unauthorized releases in accordance with federal and state standards.
Applicable existing standards include the Cal/OSHA operational requirements, California Health and Safety Code § 25270.7, and relevant fire department regulations regarding the installation and operation of underground tanks. These existing measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosions, and there is a potential for licensed vendors to transport hazardous materials to and from the project site. As discussed previously, the proposed project is subject to compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws (including Title 49 of the CFR) and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste. Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, the future tenant would coordinate with the city to ensure that transportation, handling, and use of hazardous materials would create less than significant impacts. Therefore, in compliance with these regulations and mitigation measures, the proposed project would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 above.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with the establicshed regulatory framework, compliance with mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would provide for the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements, to ensure that potentially significant impacts regarding the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact
The closest school to the project site is Chapparal High School located approximately 700 feet east of the project site at 121 W Allen Avenue. The project would be within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. However, on the Phase I ESA report there is no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property so no impacts to schools would occur and mitigation is not required. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and the fiscal year in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside waste management units.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
Hazardous waste facilities are subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List” (CalEPA, 2020). The project site is not listed in the Cortese List and there would be no impacts (CalEPA, 2020). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
The closest public airport is Brackett Field in the City of La Verne, approximately 2.25 miles to the southeast. The project site is outside of land use compatibility zones and noise contours for Brackett Field (LACALUC, 2021). Therefore, project development would not expose people residing or working in the project area to a hazard or excessive noise levels associated with airports and no impact would occur.
f) Would the project impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact
The emergency operations plan in effect for the City of San Dimas is the Los Angeles County Operational Area ERP, approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 2012. The ERP identifies County agencies and other agencies that would be involved in emergency responses, threat summaries and assessments, and procedures for responding agencies as well as County agencies that would be involved in coordinating and managing responses. The ERP is focused on emergencies beyond the scope of the daily functions of public safety agencies, such as emergencies requiring multi-agency and/or multi-jurisdictional responses.
Construction
Project construction, including installation of utility laterals connecting to mains in Allen Avenue and/or Cataract Avenue, would comply with requirements of the City of San Dimas Public Works Department Engineering Division respecting temporary encroachments into and closures of public roadway travel lanes including roadway and intersection traffic controls and sidewalk closures.
These are existing City requirements and mitigation is not required to ensure implementation.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Project operation would not block or impede emergency access or emergency responses via Allen Avenue or Cataract Avenue, and no impact would occur.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact
The project site is not in a fire hazard severity zone mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE); the nearest such zone to the project site is approximately 0.5 miles to the north (CAL FIRE, 2021). Figures 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 show Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State and Local responsibility, respectively. The project site and surrounding areas are built out with urban land uses. The nearest substantial area of natural vegetation to the project site is in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 0.7 miles to the north. Project development would not expose people or structures to substantial wildfire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Figure 4.9-1
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE – STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Figure 4.9-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less than
Significant Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporate
d
No
Impact Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
X
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or offsite; X
X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact
The project site is currently developed with nine vacant single-family residences. The natural ground topography of the site slopes towards the south and drains onto Allen Avenue, then runs westerly along Allen Avenue. The proposed drainage pattern will also be to the south towards the curb and gutter. The project proposes two drainage areas, 1A and 1B. The runoff for Area 1A will drain onto the landscape. The project proposes to have an infiltration trench at the drive aisle from which runoff will permeate with any excess drainage being discharged onto Allen Avenue through a parkway drain. Area 1B will also drain to the landscape area and into a different infiltration trench adjacent to Allen Avenue with excess runoff being discharged through the curb face along Allen Avenue. The nearest storm drain inlets to the project site are on Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue (Seaboard, 2022) (Figure 4.10-1). A 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain under Cataract Avenue discharges into a 63-inch RCP storm drain on Allen Avenue (LACPW, 2022). The drainage path from the Allen Avenue storm drain to the Pacific Ocean is as follows (Figure 4.12-2).
West to
San Dimas
Wash
West to Big
Dalton
Southwest to
Walnut Creek
Channel
West to
San Gabriel
River
South to
Pacific
Ocean.
Project Site to
Allen Avenue Wash
Impacts related to water quality would occur during the following three periods;
1. During the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
2. Following construction, prior to the establishment of ground cover in the landscaped areas, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
3. Following the completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would diminish, but those associated with urban runoff wouldincrease.
Construction Pollutant Controls
The project owner would be required by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) § 402, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction. The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into the Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) to prepare a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements, and requires construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate point and nonpoint source discharges of pollutants.
The project would be required to prepare an SWPPP, and implement the Low-Impact Development (LID) plan’s BMPs prior to the commencement of construction activities, to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit. Additionally, BMPs must be maintained and inspected before and after each rainstorm and repaired or replaced as necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply with all applicable conditions of Construction General Permit 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Order 2009-0009-DWQ, potential violations of water quality standards or wastes discharge requirements during project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The municipal stormwater (MS4) permit for the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R4-2012-0175-A01) and the City of San Dimas Public Works Department regulate the discharge of pollutants into WOUS through stormwater and urban runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains.
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, permittees, including the City of San Dimas, must regulate discharges of pollutants in urban runoff from human-caused sources into stormwater conveyance systems within their jurisdictions.
As new development and redevelopment occur, it can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and urban runoff because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household hazardous wastes, fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other human-caused pollutants (RWQCB, 2010).
The Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post-construction low-impact development BMPs into project design to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from the project site.
The project proposes three onsite storm drains:
One along most of the northern half of the east edge of the project site; would discharge to the existing storm drain on Cataract Avenue.
One along the southern part of the east edge of the project site; would discharge to the existing storm drain on Allen Avenue.
One along the northern and western edges of the site that would discharge into the existing storm drain in Allen Avenue.
With the implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts on water quality would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is located in the Main San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin, which spans approximately 255 square miles in east-central Los Angeles County (DWR, 2021). Golden State Water Company (GSWC) San Dimas System provides water to the project site. GSWC obtains water supplies from the following sources: imported water from northern California purchased through Three Valleys Municipal Water District (TVMWD); groundwater from the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin; treated groundwater and surface water purchased from Covina Irrigating Company; and 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
treated water purchased from Walnut Valley Water District (Stetson, 2021, p. 6-3). GSWC forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in its service area over the 2025-2045 period. Water demand projections are based on growth projections from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which in turn are based on forecasts according to developments pursuant to general plan land use designations (Stetson, 2021, p. 3-6). The proposed project would conform with the existing General Plan land use designation; thus, water use from the proposed project is accounted for in GSWC’s water demand forecast. Project development would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.
The project site is not used for intentional groundwater recharge, and project development would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is situated on relatively level ground and ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers were not observed during the biological survey conducted for the project.
Site preparation and grading at the project site would comply with the City of San Dimas grading code requirements. Furthermore, because the construction of the proposed project would disturb more than one acre of ground, it would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility (SWRCB, 2020).
This Construction General Permit includes performance standards for postconstruction that are consistent with State Water Board Resolution No. 2005-0006, "Resolution Adopting the Concept of Sustainability as a Core Value for State Water Board Programs and Directing Its Incorporation," and 2008-0030, “Requiring Sustainable Water Resources Management.“ The requirement for all construction sites to match pre-project hydrology will help ensure that the physical and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems is sustained. This “runoff reduction” approach is analogous in principle to Low Impact Development and will serve to protect related watersheds and waterbodies from both hydrologic-based and pollution impacts associated with the post-construction landscape (SWRCB, 2020).
The General Construction Permit requires the development of an SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. The required SWPPP would be project-specific and would prescribe site-specific stormwater BMPs which would be intended to minimize or avoid having soil leave the project site, through either stormwater or wind, and thus minimize or avoid soil erosion on site and siltation in receiving waters.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
With the implementation of a project-specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is proposed.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or
i) 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;
As detailed in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project incorporates operational LID BMPs in compliance with the City of San Dimas permit requirements. The proposed project does not have offsite run-on. The industrial property on the north side, has drainage runoff to Cataract Avenue and the one on the west side drains to West Allen Avenue. The proposed drainage pattern will be to the south. The runoff for Area 1 A will drain into the landscape. It is proposed to have an infiltration trench at the drive aisle runoff, and infiltration or any excess drainage will be discharged to West Allen Avenue through a parkway drain. Area 1B will drain to the landscape area and into the infiltration trench along West Allen avenue and excess runoff will also be discharged through the curb face. (Seaboard, 2022 pp. 3-4).
The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would: (1) result in flooding on- or offsite; (2) would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (3) 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. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
San Dimas has three flood zone designations: A9, B, and C. Flood Zone A9 covers a small stretch of the San Dimas Canyon Wash south of the Golden Hills Road and is subject to flooding in a 100-year zone. Areas along the San Dimas Canyon Wash and just south and west of the Foothill Freeway north of Arrow Highway could be impacted by a 100- to 500-year storm and fall into Flood Zone B. Flood Zone C is subjected to minimal flooding and includes the balance of the city (San Dimas 2008).
However, the project is outside of 100-year and 500-year flood zones (FEMA, 2021). Project development would not impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur (LA County, 2022).
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact
As described in Section 4.10 iv) above, the proposed project site is above the 100-year and the 500- year flood hazard zones and it is not anticipated that the site would become inundated due to flood.
A tsunami is a sea wave (or series of waves) of local or distant origin that results from large-scale seafloor displacements associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or exploding volcanic islands (California Seismic Safety Commission, 2020). A review of the Los Angeles County, California Tsunami Inundation Maps (CGS, 2021) revealed that the tsunami inundation zone nearest to the proposed project site would be at Los Alamitos in western Orange County, approximately 27 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, no tsunami hazard is present on-site, and project development would not risk the release of pollutants due to tsunami inundation.
A seiche is an oscillating wave caused by wind, tidal forces, earthquakes, landslides, and other phenomena in a closed or partially closed water body such as a river, lake, reservoir, pond, and other large inland water body. A review of aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2021) revealed no water bodies large enough to support a seiche near the proposed project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would be inundated by a seiche.
The project site is outside of dam inundation areas mapped by the Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2021b). Project development would not risk the release of pollutants due to dam inundation.
No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
The project site is in the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's (LARWQCB)’s jurisdictional area. The water quality control plan in effect in the project region is the LARWQCB Basin Plan issued in 2014. The groundwater management plan in effect in the project region is the Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan issued by the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Watermaster). The Basin Plan sets forth water quality objectives for surface waters and groundwater basins in the LARWQCB region; beneficial uses, that is, uses to which water can be put to use for the benefit of people and wildlife; plans, policies, and actions intended to achieve water quality objectives; and describes monitoring and assessment programs used to measure attainment of water quality objectives (LARWQCB, 2014). The MS4 Permit mentioned in Section 4.10a was issued pursuant to the Basin Plan. Therefore, implementation of the project’s low-impact development plan in accordance with the MS4 permit would assure that project operation would conform with plans and policies specified in the Basin Plan.
The Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan describe Watermaster’s programs for developing and monitoring water supplies; drought management; water quality cleanup, monitoring, and pollution prevention programs (Watermaster, 2021). Project impacts on groundwater would be less than significant, as substantiated in Section 4.10.b above. Therefore, project development would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the Five-Year Water Quality and Supply Plan. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Figure 4.10-1
STORM DRAINS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact
The proposed project is located on a piece of land that contains nine residential structures with various non-habitable accessory structures and disturbed open spaces spread throughout the property. The project site is surrounded primarily by light manufacturing to the north, east, and west, and residential to the south.
The project would introduce a new industrial warehouse, which would be similar to existing nearby land uses. Additionally, the project would not divide existing public spaces in the vicinity of the site or extend beyond the project site’s boundaries. Furthermore, no streets or sidewalks would be permanently closed as a result of the development. The project would utilize existing roadways, resulting in no change in roadway patterns. No separation of uses or disruption of access between land-use types would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.11-1, the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is Industrial (City of San Dimas, 2020). As shown in Figure 4.11-2, the City’s zoning designation for the project site is Light Agricultural “AL”. However, the current use on the project site is residential. The project site does not support any agricultural use. A change of zone to Light Manufacturing “M-1” has been requested under the project, which would allow for industrial warehouse uses, consistent with the proposed project (City of San Dimas, 2022). Moreover, land uses to the north, east, and west of the project site have similar industrial land use designations and existing industrial developments.
With the change in zoning from AL to M-1, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation and no impact would occur.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
Figure 4.11-1
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
Figure 4.11-2
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
4.12 Mineral Resources
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other landuse plan?
X
X
a) Would the project 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? i) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other landuse plan? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is mostly located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2, but slightly within MRZ-3, which is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood of their presence exists (DOC, 2019b). However, according to the Land Use and Zoning sections of the City of San Dimas General Plan, the City does not include mining in any of its zoning categories. Also, it is unlikely that anyone would propose establishing new surface mining operations within the city since it is not allowed within the city. According to the California Geologic Energy Management Division’s Well Finder online tool, as shown in Figure 4.12-1, the project site is not located near (within one mile of) any oil or gas wells (DOC, 2020b). Figure 4.12-2 shows that there are no geothermal wells in the vicinity of the project.
Although this project is located within MRZ-2 and MRZ-3, where significant amounts of deposits might be present, the project cannot and will not interfere with the availability of these resources since they cannot be accessed due to the requirements of the City of San Dimas’ General Plan, that does not allow active mining within the city limits. Therefore, the project site is not an important local mineral resource recovery site and the project would have less than significant impact on the availability of known mineral and oil-based resources of value to the region or state residents and on any locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
7091/Allen Avenue Warehouse Project Page 4.12-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1169 – 1497 January 2023 SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.12-1
OIL AND GAS WELLS AND FIELDS
7091/Allen Avenue Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.12-2
GEOTHERMAL WEL
7091/Allen Avenue Warehouse Project Page 4.12-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1171 – 1497 January 2023 SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
4.13 Noise
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant No Impact
Impact
Would the project result in:
Incorporated
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards X
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
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?
X
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise.
Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.
This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest measurement within a measurement interval.
CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime (Caltrans, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.13.3 Sensitive Land Uses
The City of San Dimas Defines 'Noise Sensitive Areas' as "quiet zones of the city which contain activities more sensitive to noise than most activities. Existing quiet zones shall be considered noise sensitive areas until otherwise designated".
Sensitive receivers for short-term exposures are defined as schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses. The principal sensitive receivers in the project vicinity are the single-family residences are along West Allen Avenue and Chaparral High School east of the project boundary.
Figure 4.13-1 shows the locations of the sensitive receivers. Table 4.13-1 identifies sensitive receivers in the project vicinity.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Figure 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS NEAR PROJECT SITE
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Table 4-13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS IN PROJECT AREA
Feet From
Sitea
414
ID Name Type Address
1 2
3 4
5 Single-family Residence
Single-family Residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Chaparral High School
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Institutional
402 W Allen Ave.
336 W Allen Ave.
308 W Allen Ave.
234 W Allen.
160
57 272
W Allen & Monte Vista Ave. 720
aThese distances are from the sensitive receiver to the nearest point on the project boundary. They were not used in the noise exposue calculations.
4.13.4 Existing Noise
The project site is located in a predominantly industrial and residential area. The main source of ambient noise is traffic on Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue, industrial operations, and noise from the I-210 freeway.
4.13.5 Ambient Noise Levels
UltraSystems Environmental Inc. conducted ambient noise sampling at five locations near the project site, as shown in Figure 4.13-2 and described in Table 4.13-1. Details of the ambient sampling methods and results are provided in Appendix I. The equipment used for obtaining these measurements is a Quest SoundPro DL-1-1/3.
Ten 15-minute samples (two per site) were taken between 8:39 a.m. and 4:02 p.m. on January 7, 2022. The 15-minute Leq values ranged from 62.4 to 66.9 dBA. The lowest of these values was measured at Point 3, which is located in front of a single-family residence along West Allen Avenue, and south of the project site. The maximum ambient noise level was located at Point 1, which is located in front of a single-family residence along West Allen Avenue, and west of the project site.
Table 4.13-1
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Measurement Results (dBA)
Point Sampling Location
15-Minute Leq Lmax L90
1 66.6
65.7 77.3
80.3 55.0
53.2 402 West Allen Avenue, southwest of the
project area in a residential neighborhood 1a
2 2a
3 63.6
66.9 62.4
65.3 63.2
79.9 83.8
79.6 78.6
81.0 50.3
53.6 48.5
54.5 50.3
336 West Allen Avenue, southwest of the
project area in a residential neighborhood
308 West Allen Avenue, just south of the project
area. 3a
4 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Measurement Results (dBA)
15-Minute Leq Lmax
Point Sampling Location
L90
234 West Allen Avenue, southeast of the project
area
4a 66.7 80.7 54.6
5 63.5
64.2 86.2
84.9 52.4
53.3 West Allen Avenue & Monte Vista Avenue, east
of the project site 5a
Source: UltraSystems, with Google Earth, 2022.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Figure 4.13-2
AMBIENT SAMPLING POINTS
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
4.13.6 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in Appendix D of the General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in 2017 (OPR, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses:
Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary.
Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise study.
Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation.
Clearly unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The OPR noise compatibility guidelines assign ranges of CNEL values to each of these categories. The ranges differ for different types of sensitive receivers, and are shown in Table 4.13-3.
City of San Dimas General Plan Noise Element
The City of San Dimas adopted its update to the General Plan in September 1991. The City of San Dimas General Plan Noise Element has the following goals, policies and actions that apply to the proposed project:
Goals Statement N-1A: To protect those existing regions of the City for which the noise environment is deemed acceptable and those locations throughout the City which are deemed “Noise-Sensitive.” Objective 1.1: Future projects within the City regarding the reduction of unnecessary noise near noisesensitive areas… Policy 1.1.4: Close attention should be paid to the noise evaluation in environmental impact statements
City of San Dimas Municipal Code (Title 8, Chapter 8.36) The City of San Dimas Municipal Code specifies that the allowable noise level in a low-density residential zone shall be the higher of either the actual measured ambient level or the following sound level (A-weighted) decibels: 50 (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.); 45 (6 p.m. to 10 p.m.); 40 (night).
8.36.030 Fixed and mobile noise sources.
On or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless a permit has been granted by the development plan review board, it is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, any single or combination fixed source or mobile source type of equipment or machinery, that individually or collectively constitute an identifiable noise source in such a manner as to cause the sound level at any point on the property line of any property to exceed the noise level 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
limits set forth in Section 8.36.040 of this chapter, however, that if all provisions of Section 8.36.11011 are complied with, this section shall not apply to construction equipment used in connection with construction operations. (Ord. 868 § 1, 1987).
8.36.040 Noise level limit.
The allowable noise level or sound level referred to in Section 8.36.030 shall be the higher of the following:
A. Actual measured ambient level; or
B. That noise level limit as determined from the following table:
Sound level (A-weighted) Zone Time decibels
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 50
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Night
Residential - Low and
medium density 45
40 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Night
7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Night
60 55
50 60
55 50
Residential - High density
Commercial
7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Night
70 60
55 Industrial
If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone shall apply. (Ord. 868 § 1, 1987).
8.36.060 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Uses.
A. The noise standards for the various categories of land use identified in Section 8.36.040, shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated, apply to all property within a designated zone.
B. Except as otherwise permitted by this chapter no person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location which causes the noise level when measured at any point on any other property, to exceed the limits set forth in Section 8.36.040 of this chapter.
C. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone shall apply. (Ord. 868 § 1 (part) 1987)
8.36.100 Construction.
A. It is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on any building, structure or project, or to operate any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, steam or electric hoist or other construction-type equipment or device between the hours of eight p.m. of one day and 11 We believe that there is an error in § 8.36.030: it should refer to § 8.36.100. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
seven a.m. of the next day, at any time on Sunday, or at any time on any public holiday in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained in accordance with the provisions of subsection B of this section. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work. “Public holiday,” as used in this section, means the day upon which each of the following holidays is recognized and celebrated as a holiday by the employees of the city: Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas, New Year’s Eve, New Year’s, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day or any other holiday recognized as such by the city council.
B. A permit may be issued authorizing the work prohibited by this section whenever it is found that the public interest will be served thereby. An application for such a permit shall be in writing, shall be accompanied by an application fee in the amount of fifty dollars, or as from time to time an amount set by a resolution of the city council, and shall set forth in detail facts showing that the public interests will be served by the issuance of such permit. Such application shall be made to the building and safety division of the department of community development. The building official shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this section and shall have the authority to issue such permits. He shall coordinate the processing of each application for a permit with such departments as he deems will be affected by the issuance of the permit. (Ord. 868 § 1, 1987)
Table 4.13-3
CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017.
4.13.7 Significance Thresholds
The City of San Dimas has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal, state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the construction and operation of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following:
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City of San Dimas General Plan Noise Element.
Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 8:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit.
Increase short-term noise exposures at sensitive receivers during construction by 5 dBA Leq or more.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact.
Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic flow) by 5 dBA Leq or more.
4.13.8 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction activities, especially with heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources. Onsite noise sources from the operation of the warehouse facility would include the use of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners and landscaping and building maintenance activities. Offsite noise would be attributable to project-induced traffic, which would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near the project vicinity. Each is described below.
This section also evaluates potential groundborne vibration that would be generated from the construction or operation of the proposed project.
Short-Term Construction Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of construction equipment and onroad delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Using calculation methods published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2006), UltraSystems estimated the average hourly exposures at the single-family residence nearest ambient noise measurement location 3. As will be discussed below, the blocking of the noise travel path by one or more intervening buildings was taken into account where applicable. The distances used for the calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the time. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction of the proposed project would begin in May-June 2023 and end in March 2024.
The types and numbers of pieces of equipment anticipated in each phase of construction and development were estimated by running the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2 (BREEZE Software, 2017b), and having the model generate land use-based default values. The CalEEMod equipment default values are based on a construction survey performed by the SCAQMD (BREEZE Software, 2017a). Table 4.13-4 lists the equipment expected to be used. For each equipment type, the table shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a “usage factor,” which is an estimated percentage of operating time that 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
the equipment would be producing noise at the stated level.12,13 Equipment use was matched to phases of the construction schedule.
During each construction phase the line of sight between some sensitive receivers and construction noise sources will be substantially blocked by existing buildings. The effects of the shielding were taken into account according to Caltrans guidance (Caltrans, 2013, p. 2-35). The noise attenuation from intervening buildings ranged from none to 5 dBA.
Table 4.13-4
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Combined
Construction
Phase
No. of Sound Level Usage
Factor Equipment Type Pieces @ 50 feet
(dBA Leq)
Demolition 80.68
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Excavators
1 1
1 1
1 1
4 1
2 0.37
0.37 0.38
0.41 0.38
0.37 0.56
0.29 0.2
80.68 Graders Grading 84.76
87.53 Off-Highway Trucks
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Cranes Building
Construction Forklifts
Utility Trenching
and Installation
Landscaping
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80.68
80.68 0.37
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Plate Compactors
1 1
1 1
1 0.37
0.56 0.43
0.38 0.37
Paving 84.56
68.01 Rollers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Architectural
Coating Aerial Lifts 1 0.31
Results of the construction noise calculations are presented in Table 4.13-5. The most noise generating construction phase would be building construction for Unit 1, which would result in a maximum hourly Leq of 77.4 dBA (ambient plus contribution from construction) across West Allen Avenue from the project site. The City of San Dimas Municipal Code does not contain standards with which to compare these results.
12 Equipment noise emissions and usage factors are from Knauer, H. et al., 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology, Administration, Cambridge, Massachusetts, FHWA-HEP-06-015 (August 2006), except where otherwise noted. 13 Scraper, crane, and cement and mortar mixer, and roller noise emissions data from County of Ventura, Construction Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. Amended July 2010. This document was also source of usage factors for cranes, cement and mortar mixers, pavers, paving equipment and rollers. Rubber tired dozer noise emissions data from measurements made by Anderson (2007, p. 47) at construction sites. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Table 4.13-5
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM INCREASES IN NOISE EXPOSURE AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Ambient
dBA Leq
Construction
dBA Leq
New Total Increase
dBA Leq
Receiver dBA Leq
a
1 – 402 West Allen Avenue
2 – 336 West Allen Avenue
3 – 308 West Allen Avenue
4 – 234 West Allen Avenue
5 – 121 West Allen Avenue
6 – 337 West Allen Avenue
66.2 65.6
64.1 65.3
63.9 65.6
66.1 66.9
77.2 69.4
63.1 70.9
69.2 3.0
69.3 3.7
77.4 13.3
5.5 2.6
70.8 66.5
72.0 6.4
aNoise attenuation from intervening buildings taken into account where applicable.
The increase due to project construction at 308 West Allen Avenue would be 13.3 dBA Leq, which would be greater than 5 dBA. Increase at two other sensitive receivers would also exceed 5 dBA Leq.
Therefore, short term unmitigated impacts would be significant. However, with implementation of mitigation measures N-1 and N-2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
MM N-1 The construction contractor will use the following source controls when working within 600 feet of occupied residential buildings:
Use of noise-producing equipment will be limited to the interval from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction on Sundays.
For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately.
Have only necessary equipment onsite.
Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms.
MM N-2 When working near adjacent residential uses, the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible, when needed:
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical.
Operational Noise
Onsite
Onsite noise sources from the proposed warehouse facility would include operation of rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries. Noise levels from these sources are generally lower than from the traffic on streets bordering the project site. Finally, most of the noise from onsite truck traffic, engine idling, and loading and unloading will be within a recess in the west side of the proposed warehouse; the structure will block the line of sight to sensitive receivers on the south.14 The operational noise levels would be within both the City’s daytime and nighttime residential noise standards of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively.
Therefore, operational noise would be less than significant.
For due diligence, the analysis included calculating noise from trucks entering and leaving the facility.
The transportation assessment memorandum for this project (Núñez et al., 2022, Table 1) estimates that the maximum daily traffic (on a weekday)15 would be 109 vehicles, of which 22 would be trucks.
Assuming uniform hourly traffic, the average hourly onsite traffic would be 1.83 trucks.16 The average hourly noise exposure for a given number of individual arrivals is (FTA, 2018, p. 44):
Leq = SEL + 10 log(V) + CS log(S/50) – 35.6
where
SEL = sound exposure level of one vehicle17
V = number of vehicles per hour
CS = speed constant (assumed to be 15 for diesel trucks) S = average vehicle speed, miles per hour (assumed to be 5 miles per hour onsite) No information on SEL values for diesel trucks was publicly available. A typical noise exposure level for a heavy-duty diesel truck at 50 feet and moving at 50 miles per hour is about 82 dBA (FHWA, 2019, p. 69). This is the same as the SEL for a diesel bus (FTA, 2018, p. 78). It is reasonable, for the purpose of this analysis, to use 82 dBA for the trucks. Therefore, for 1.83 vehicles per hour, Leq would be 34.0 dBA at 50 feet. Increases in Leq at the closest residence would essentially be undetectable.
Noise impacts from onsite truck activity would be less than significant. 14 15
16 17
No sensitive receivers are west of the project site.
Warehouse plus office building.
In the absence of specific information we are assuming 12 hours per day of operation.
The sound exposure level (SEL) is equivalent to the total sound energy experienced during a measurement period, as if it had all occurred in one second.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Mobile Sources
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local roadways and the I-210 freeway. The project may contribute to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated vehicle traffic on nearby roadways, freeways and at major intersections.
As noted above, the proposed project would generate an estimated 109 new daily vehicle trips (ADT).
Existing roadway segment average daily traffic (ADT) data were obtained from the City of San Dimas 24 hours Traffic Count 2017. ADT along West Allen Avenue, which is where the single-family residence sensitive noise receivers nearest the project are, is 7,841 trips per day (City of San Dimas Traffic Count, 2017). The project would increase traffic by about 1.4%. Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled in order for the noise level to increase by 3 dBA (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009), the minimum level perceived by the average human ear. A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Since the maximum increase in traffic in this road segment would be far below 100%, the increase in roadway noise experienced at sensitive receivers would not be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, roadway noise associated with project operation would not expose a land use to noise levels that are considered incompatible with or in excess of adopted standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) that causes the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root-meansquare (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response (FTA, 2018, pp. 110-111).
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings (FTA, 2018, p. 120).
Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance).
The construction vibration analysis used formulas published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2018, p. 185). For a standard reference distance of 25 feet, peak particle velocity is found from:
PPV = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where
PPVref = Reference source vibration at 25 feet
D = Distance from source to receiver
The vibration level (VdB) for a standard reference distance of 25 feet is found from:
VdB = Lvref – 30 log(D/25)
where
Lvref
D
= Reference source vibration level at 25 feet
= Distance from source to receiver
The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance of 25 feet (FTA, 2006, p. 12-12). The smallest distance from project construction activity to a residential receiver would be about 105 feet. The calculated vibration levels expressed in VdB and PPV for selected types of construction equipment at distances of 25 and 105 feet are listed in Table 4.13-6.
As shown in Table 4.13-6, the vibration level of construction equipment at the nearest sensitive receiver is at most 0.0184 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of 0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings, and 68 VdB, which is less than the FTA threshold for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Vibration impacts would therefore be less than significant.
Table 4.13-6
VIBRATION LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Vibration
Decibels
at 25 feet
(VdB)
Vibration
Decibels
at 105 feet
(VdB)
PPV
at 25 feet
(in/sec)
PPV
at 105 feet
(in/sec)
Equipment
Loaded trucks
Small bulldozer
Large bulldozer
0.076
0.003
0.089
86 58
87 0.0157
0.000619
0.0184
67 39
68 Sources: Data at 25 feet from (FTA, 2006, p. 12-12); calculations by UltraSystems. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
Operational Vibration
Groundborne vibrations at the project site and immediate vicinity currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g. freight trucks) on the nearby local roadways, and the project would not result in a substantial increase of these heavy-duty vehicles on the public roadways. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with operation of the project would be less than significant. 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?
No Impact
The closest public airport is the Brackett Field Airport, located in La Verne, approximately two miles southeast of the project site. It is owned and managed by the County of Los Angeles. At the current level of activity, the impact of Brackett Airport flight operations is not considered significant in existing residential areas in San Dimas (City of San Dimas, General Plan Noise Element, 1991, p. VIII13). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.14 Population and Housing
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with Significant
Mitigation
Less than No
Impact Would the project:
Impact
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through the extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact
Existing and forecasted demographic data for the City of San Dimas for 2021 and 2045 are shown below in Table 4.14-1. The population of the cCty of San Dimas is forecast to increase by approximately 1,000, or 3%, between 2021 and 2045, and employment in the city is forecast to increase by 1,400, or 12 percent between 2016 and 2045. The number of households in the city is expected to remain approximately even over the 2021-2045 period.
Note that the SCAG 2020 housing and population forecasts for the City of San Dimas are obsolete. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the City of San Dimas issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the 2021-2029 period is for 1,248 units (SCAG, 2021). The average household size in the City of San Dimas in 2021 was 2.77 persons. The estimated number of households, and population, in the city in 2029—assuming the city achieves its RHNA allocation—are shown below in Table 4.14-2.
Table 4.14-1
CITY OF SAN DIMAS DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
Percent Difference
(2045 – 2021) 2021 2045 Difference
(2045 – 2021)
Population 2.9%
Households
Employment
34,064
12,100
11,500
35,000
12,300
12,900
997
200 1.7%
1,400 12.2%
Sources: CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; US Census, 2022
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING
Table 4.14-2
CITY OF SAN DIMAS DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES
Assuming achievement of Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, 2021-2029 Difference,
2029 - 2021
3,457
Percent Difference, 2021 2029 2029 - 2021
Population
Households
34,003
12,289
37,460
13,537
10.2%
1,248 10.2%
Sources: CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; US Census, 2022
The project proposes the development of a warehouse and does not propose the construction of any residential uses, or extension of existing infrastructure. Project development would not cause direct population growth impacts.
Project development would involve the demolition of the nine (9) residential units on site. The units are currently vacant; thus, demolition would not require the construction of replacement housing to house the current residents of those units. However, the demolition could still have a small adverse impact on the housing supply in the City of San Dimas. In 2021 an estimated 525 housing units in the city were vacant, for a vacancy rate of 4.1% (CDF, 2021). Project impacts on housing in San Dimas would be less than significant.
Project operation is estimated to generate 65 jobs, and project construction would generate a small number of temporary jobs. Project employment generation would be within the estimated 1,200 employment growth in the city between 2016 and 2045. The unemployment rate in Los Angeles County in July 2022 was 4.9 percent (EDD, 2022); therefore, it is expected that project-generated employment would be absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract workers from outside of the region. Thus, indirect population growth impacts related to new jobs created by the project would be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact
The project proposes a warehouse facility on an approximately 2.58-acre site and does not propose the construction of any residential uses, nor does it include an extension of existing infrastructure.
Project development would not cause direct population growth impacts. Project development would involve the demolition of the nine (9) residential units on site. The units are vacant; thus, demolition would not require the construction of replacement housing to house the current residents of those units. However, the demolition could still be a small adverse impact on the housing supply in the City of San Dimas. In 2021 an estimated 525 housing units in the city were vacant, for a vacancy rate of
4.1 percent (CDF, 2021). The regional projection shown above in Table 4.14-1 is that approximately 200 households will be added to the city between 2021 and 2045. However, the City of San Dimas Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element sets forth the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the city of 1,248 units, including 604 units for households with incomes below 80% of the area median family income (City of San Dimas, 2022, p. 4-2). Therefore, project impacts on housing in San Dimas would be less than significant.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
4.15 Public Services
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
X
X
X
X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities?
a) Fire Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Fire prevention, fire protection, and emergency response services for the City of San Dimas are provided by Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). There are two fire stations in San Dimas, serving a population of 34,334 people in an area of 16 square miles, which calculates to one fire station per 17,167 people, and one fire station per seven square miles. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department as a whole is serving a population of 9,829,544 people in an area of 4,029 square miles, which calculates to an average of one fire station per 56,189 people in an average area of 23 square miles (US Census, 2022).
Station 64, Battalion 2 Headquarters, is located at 164 S. Walnut Avenue, and Station 141 is located at 1124 W Puente Street. Fire Station#64 is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project site. LACFD provides fire protection and emergency response services to the San Dimas community with a mission to prevent the loss of life and property. In addition to responding to calls for fire suppression, LACFD responds to medical emergencies, incidents involving hazardous materials, rescue calls, and motor vehicle or other accidents (LACFD, 2022).
The project proposes a two-unit warehouse building totaling 63,749 square feet on two levels. Travel time to the project site from Station 64 is approximately five minutes. Therefore, the response time for the closest fire station to the project site would be within the LACFD goal of having a six-minute response time.
The project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008, and CAL FIRE, 2020). The project would comply with applicable portions of the City of San Dimas Municipal Code. The project would also be consistent with the 2016 edition of the California Residential Code (CRC), Section 237; and the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC), as adopted and amended by the Fire District.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
Furthermore, the adequacy of existing water pressure and water availability in the project area would be verified by the LACFD during the proposed project’s plan check review process. Compliance with the above-mentioned codes and standards is mandatory and routinely conditioned upon projects. The project, once operational, would be inspected periodically by the LACFD.
Development of the project site would be consistent with the land use goals and strategic policy map included in the City of San Dimas’s General Plan and has therefore been planned for, from the standpoint of long-term infrastructure needs (San Dimas, 2022).
The project’s demands on fire protection services would have a less than significant impact. b) Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Police protection and law enforcement services (San Dimas Sheriff’s Department, SDSD) in the City of San Dimas are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office. The nearest police station to the project site is located at 270 S Walnut Ave, approximately one mile southeast of the project site.
The San Dimas Station is the central location for 18 Patrol Deputies, one Motorcycle Reserve Deputy, three CAT Team Leaders, three Special Assignment Officers (CAT Team), one Team Sergeant, two Community Service Assistants, one Law Enforcement Technician (Crime Prevention Officer), and one School Resource Officer. Given the estimated population of 34,064 in 2021 (US Census, 2022), San Dimas has an approximate service-to-population ratio of one sworn officer per 1,144 residents (1.14 sworn officers per 1,000 residents). This is slightly higher than the Los Angeles County average of 0.9 sworn officers per 1,000 residents (LASD, 2022).
The residential population is not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create limited employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move from out of the project area to work on the proposed project. Therefore, the ratio of sworn officers to residents is not expected to change.
Moreover, the development of the project site is consistent with the overall growth anticipated by the General Plan at buildout and has therefore been planned for from the standpoint of long-term infrastructure needs. The project would not result in a substantial increase in the population and housing in the surrounding area, nor is it expected to significantly affect the existing service capacity of the San Dimas Police Department. Therefore, less than significant impacts on police protection services would occur.
c) Schools?
No Impact
The project site is located within the Bonita Unified School District (BUSD). BUSD provides public education for approximately 10,000 students and includes eight Grade K-5 schools, two Grade 6-8 schools, three Grade 9-12 schools, one Grade K-12 school, and one Adult Education school, (NCES, 2022). The demand for schools is generally triggered by an increase in population or new residential uses. The project does not propose any new residential uses. Therefore, no impact on schools would occur.
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the City of San Dimas are managed by the Landscape Maintenance Divisions of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, which maintains 14 City-operated recreational facilities, including 12 parks, a Swim and Racquet Club, and the Sportsplex (City of San Dimas, 2022).
The parks nearest to the project include Merchant Park, located approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the project site, and Civic Center Park, approximately 0.75 miles south of the project site as shown in Figure 4.16-1. It is possible that employees at the project site may visit these parks; however, the potential impact of these visits on parks would be less than significant.
The project does not propose residential land uses and is not anticipated to add new residents to the city. It is possible that employees at the project site may visit nearby parks, but the potential impact of these visits on parks would be less than significant. e) Other Public Facilities?
No Impact
The San Dimas Library is part of the Los Angeles County Library System, which is comprised of 72 branch libraries. The San Dimas Library is the only library within the City of San Dimas located at 145 Walnut Avenue. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce any population growth. Therefore, the project would have no impact on libraries or other public facilities. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION
4.16 Recreation
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities X
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the City of San Dimas are managed by the Landscape Maintenance Division of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department, which maintains fourteen City-operated recreational facilities, which include twelve parks, a Swim and Racquet Club, and the Sportsplex (City of San Dimas, 2022). The City’s Park acreage standard is 2.0 acres of land per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks and 3.5 acres of land per 1,000 population for community parks. The City currently has approximately 137.5 acres total in parks for public use.
The project proposes a two-unit warehouse building totaling 63,749 square feet on two levels. The residential population is not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create limited employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. Moreover, the land uses nearest to the project site are primarily light manufacturing.
The parks nearest to the project include Merchant Park, located approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the project site, and Civic Center Park also located approximately 0.75 miles south of the project site as shown in Figure 4.16-1. It is possible that employees at the project site may visit these parks; however, the potential impact of these visits on parks would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION
No Impact
As described above, the project does not propose new or expanded recreational facilities that would have potential adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur. 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION
Figure 4.16-1
PARKS AND RECREATION
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
4.17 Transportation
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Would the project:
Incorporated
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
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?
X
X
The analysis below is based on the Transportation Assessment Memorandum for the Allen/Cataract Warehouse Project that was conducted by Fehr & Peers (refer to Appendix G). The trip generation assessment estimated trip generation using trip generation rates for the fully built project. An existing use credit was taken for the entire site using the ITE trip generation rate for the nine vacant single-family homes (ITE Code 210). Accounting for the conversion of estimated truck trips into passenger car equivalent (PCE) rates, the Project is expected to generate an estimated net new 64 daily trips, including 10 trips during the AM peak hour and eight trips during the PM peak hour. (Fehr & Peers)
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? No Impact
The following City and County plan ordinances and policies would apply to the project; San Dimas General Plan Circulation Element
Goal 1 is to provide a street network to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of San Dimas.
The project proposes an industrial land use in the form of a warehouse and will not remove sidewalks along the frontage of the project site. The project will support this goal by reducing the number of driveways from nine existing access points to two. This would reduce the number of conflict points between transportation modes on project site frontages. Sidewalks currently do not exist on the west side of Cataract Avenue, and the project would install new sidewalks along its frontage. The project 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
also does not preclude the City of San Dimas from implementing a safer and more efficient street network.
Goal 2 is to promote a public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient and meets the identified needs of the City of San Dimas.
There are no fixed-route transit services along Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue and the project does not preclude the implementation of this goal or the expansion of transit service in the vicinity of the project site.
Goal 3 is to promote safe alternatives to motorized transportation that meet the needs of all City residents.
The project will not remove sidewalks along the frontage of the project site but will reduce the number of driveways along Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue, which should improve the safety of pedestrians using the sidewalks on the project site frontages by reducing the number of driveways where vehicle/pedestrian conflicts could occur. There are no sidewalks currently existing along the west side of Cataract Avenue and the project proposes to install new sidewalks along this frontage.
The project will also provide four short-term bicycle parking spaces.
The project will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and thus no impacts are anticipated.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact
Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, of the CEQA Guidelines describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section 15064.3(b) includes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which focuses on the overall miles traveled by vehicles within a region, is the new metric for transportation analysis and replaces automobile delay (Level of Service -LOS), which is no longer used as a criterion for determining a significant environmental effect under CEQA. For land-use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3).
In anticipation of the change to VMT, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) undertook the SGVCOG SB 743 Implementation Study to assist with answering important implementation questions about the methodology, thresholds, and mitigation approaches for VMT impact analysis in its member agencies. The study includes the following main components.
1. Analysis Methodologies Memorandum – Identification of potential thresholds that can be considered when establishing thresholds of significance for VMT assessment and recommendations of analysis methodologies for VMT impact screening and analysis
2. Mitigation Memorandum – Types of mitigation that can be considered for VMT mitigation
3. VMT Assessment Tool – A web-based tool that can be used for VMT screening and mitigation recommendation
7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
The City of San Dimas utilized the information produced through the Implementation Study to adopt a methodology and significance thresholds for use in CEQA compliance, as noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b). The City has produced the Transportation Study Guidelines to outline the specific steps for complying with the new CEQA expectations for VMT analysis and the applicable general plan consistency requirements related to the Level of Service (LOS). The City of San Dimas City Council adopted the City’s VMT approach on October 27, 2020. (City of San Dimas Transportation Study Guidelines, May 2021)
Consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory18, the City of San Dimas adopted guidance that applies three screening criteria to identify if a proposed project is presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact:
1. Project accessibility to transit: The proposed project does not meet this criterion because there are no fixed-route transit services within 0.5 miles of the project site that meet the requirements for applying transit screening.
2. Project location in a low VMT area: The proposed project does not meet this criterion per analysis using the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool. As described in the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines, this tool is used to verify the applicability of this screening and the analysis result has shown it is not located in a low VMT area.
3. Project Type and projects that generate fewer than 110 net new daily trips: The Project does meet Criteria 3, as it will only generate 64 net new daily trips. Therefore, according to the City of San Dimas Transportation Study Guidelines and OPR guidance, the project can be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT due to its estimated trip generation, and no further VMT analysis is required.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and project impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact
The Project will not remove sidewalks along the frontage of the project site but will reduce the number of driveways along Allen Avenue and Cataract Avenue, which should improve the safety of pedestrians using the sidewalks on the project site frontages by reducing the number of driveways where vehicle/pedestrian conflicts could occur. There are no sidewalks currently existing along the west side of Cataract Avenue and the project proposes to install new sidewalks along this frontage.
The project will also provide four short-term bicycle parking spaces.
Commercial and business vehicles would access the facility via the driveways along Cataract Avenue and Allen Avenue. An approximately 30-foot wide fire lane is provided along the northern and western sides of the proposed building. A protected pedestrian path of travel from the public rightof-way to the building will be provided via the walkways along Cataract Avenue on the northeast and 18 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory, CEQA Exemptions Outside of the CEQA Statue, https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20180606-Tech_Advisory_CEQA_Exemptions.pdf 7091/ Allen-Cataract Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration