L SA VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
Pursuant to notification requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52),the City separately notified the following Native American contacts of the project on June 28, 2023:
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
From these notification,the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation commenced formal consultation with the City on June 29, 2023 and July 18, 2023, respectively. No further consultation responses other Native American tribes or contacts have been received.
During consultation, both the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation both stated that the project site is within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of their respective tribes. Ground disturbance below existing current grade would be required to develop the proposed residential and ancillary uses, relocate existing drainage systems, construct the 15th Street extension, and modify the remaining portion of the basin to retain sufficient flood control capacity. A field survey of the project site was conducted on February 14, 2023. No archaeological resources were identified within the project site during either the records or search and field survey. Based on the field survey results, there is negative indication for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. Due to the amount of heavy disturbance within the project site necessary to construct and maintain the existing basin and due to the negative survey results,there exists a low potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites in the project site. Despite this low potential and the apparent absence of tribal cultural resource within the limits of the project site, as established during consultation, ground disturbance may potentially impact such resources that were previously undetected.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 have been identified to address this potentially significant impact. Of note, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 have been identified through consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, while Mitigation Measures TCR-4 and TCR-5 have been identified through consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground Disturbance Activities
a. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation.The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any"ground-disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Ground-disturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition,
4.8-8 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the
issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-
disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively,tribal cultural resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or(2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects(Non- Funerary/Non-Ceremonial)
a. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resource, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist.The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx(10/14/24) 4.8-9
L SA VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
Mitigation Measure TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
a. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site,then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
e. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
The following measures have been identified to address consultation with the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN):
Mitigation Measure TCR-4 The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) Cultural Resources Department shall be contacted, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA(as amended, 2015), by a Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Plan) shall be created by qualified archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN. All subsequent finds shall be subject to the Plan.The Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.
4.8-10 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
Mitigation Measure TCR-5 Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports,testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.
Implementation of the stated mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
According to Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts refer to incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects. Cumulative impacts on cultural resources evaluate whether impacts of the project and cumulative projects, when taken as a whole, substantially diminish the number of historical or archaeological resources within the same or similar context or property type.
Ground disturbance associated with the project and cumulative projects could potentially affect previously unidentified archaeological sites and/or associated human remains.
As with the project, cumulative projects have, are, or will be required to complete project-specific cultural resource assessments required under the applicable guidelines and requirements, and similar to the project, impacts on known or previously unknown cultural resources on adjacent sites would be required to be mitigated to less than significant levels with appropriate mitigation measures. Furthermore, consultation with interested tribal governments, including the implementation of measures to safeguard identified tribal cultural resources, is required prior to completion of the CEQA process on all projects. Completion of the consultation processes required under AB 52 and SB 18 and the incorporation of applicable measures as project-specific conditions or mitigation required for each cumulative project would ensure that potential cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources remain less than significant. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx(10/14/24) 4.8-11
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
4.8-12 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\4.8 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA r(`
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
As required by CEQA, this chapter discusses the types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project: growth-inducing impacts; significant irreversible changes; effects found not to be significant; and significant unavoidable effects.
5.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
This section summarizes the project's potential growth-inducing impacts on the surrounding community. A project is typically considered growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing; if it would remove obstacles to population growth or tax community services to the extent that the construction of new facilities would be necessary; or if it would encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental effects.' Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project- specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped.
The proposed project consists of the construction of 65 new single-family residential units,the extension of 15th Street, installation of ancillary improvements, and modification of a portion of the remaining 15th Street Flood Control Basin. Development of the proposed project would result in direct population growth within Upland, as it would include residential units. As discussed in Section
6.3.8 below,the proposed project would increase Upland's population by approximately 191 persons.As described in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project(included in Appendix A- 5),the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that there could be 81,700 people, 28,900 households, and 43,500 jobs in Upland by 2040.The proposed project's contribution to growth would represent a negligible amount of the future growth forecast in Upland (0.23 percent of the projected 2040 city population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 city households).The addition of 189 residents within Upland would result in population growth within the city; however, this additional population is consistent with the city, county, and regional (SCAG) growth projections.
Therefore,the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in Upland that has not been previously planned for.Additionally,the proposed project would consist of redevelopment in an area surrounded by existing residential development and would not require the extension of utilities or roads into undeveloped areas or directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites. Due to the location of the project site and the presence of existing uses, roadways, and utility infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, construction of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth in the area.Therefore, the growth that would occur as a result of the proposed project would not be substantial or adverse.
State CEQA Guidelines. 2021.Section 15126.2(d).
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24) 5-1
L A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT `(` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
CEQA suggests that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Each of these three categories is further detailed below.
5.2.1 Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations The proposed project would allow for the development of an approximately 9.16acre portion of the 15th Street Flood Control Basin.As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City has determined that the 9.16-acre portion of the flood control basin comprising the project site is a surplus parcel. A portion of the basin directly adjacent to the residential development area would be modified to adequately accommodate flood control operations.The extreme eastern portion of the basin (the 4.29-acre 'conservation area')would be preserved in its current condition.
The project site and immediate area are surrounded by a mix of residential, recreational open space, and commercial uses.The proposed Specific Plan would be a comprehensive plan for development of residential and open space land uses and infrastructure improvements to serve the proposed residential development. The Specific Plan establishes the development regulations and design criteria for development of the proposed project.The Specific Plan also establishes the procedures and requirements enabling City of Upland (City) review and approval of development of the project, thereby ensuring that the City's General Plan, as amended for the project site, is implemented.
Because the project would occur on an infill site in which a variety of land uses may be considered under the General Plan and Municipal Code, and because in the future,the site could be rezoned, in which case at the end of the useful life of the project,the use could change, it would not commit future generations to a significant change in land use.
5.2.2 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosion of a hazardous material, is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, as outlined in Section 3.3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Initial Study, would ensure that this potential impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.As such, no irreversible changes—such as those that might result from construction of a large-scale mining project, a hydroelectric dam project, or other industrial project—would result from development of the proposed project.
5.2.3 Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. As discussed in the Initial Study(Appendix B), the State Department of Conservation designates the site as "Urban and Built-Up Land," and the site is located in an urbanized area of Upland.Therefore, no existing agricultural lands would be converted to non-agricultural uses. In addition,the project site does not contain known mineral 5-2 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA r``
resources and does not serve as a mining reserve; thus, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of access to mining reserves. Please refer to Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.12 of the Initial Study included in Appendix A-5 for a discussion of impacts related to agricultural and mining resources, respectively.
Construction of the proposed project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. Energy consumption would also occur during the operational period of the proposed project.As discussed in Section 3.3.6, Energy, of the Initial Study,the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy or natural gas as these services are already provided in the area.Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact associated with the consumption of nonrenewable resources.
5.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The environmental topics analyzed in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, represent those topics which generated the greatest potential controversy and expectation of adverse impacts associated with development of the proposed project. As discussed in more detail in the Initial Study(Appendix A-5), which was used as a preliminary scoping tool,the following topics are not addressed in the detailed topical sections of this EIR because impacts related to these topics either would not occur or would be less than significant with implementation mitigation measures.
A summary of the conclusions provided in the Initial Study analysis for each of the topics scoped out of the EIR is provided below.
5.3.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The project site is classified as "Urban and Built-Up Land" by the State Department of Conservation.
The project site is not used for agricultural production, nor does it support forestry resources.
Therefore,there would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources.
5.3.2 Cultural Resources
The project site does not contain any known historical resources. However,the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to the accidental discovery of archaeological resources or human remain during site preparation activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1,these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains would be less than significant.
5.3.3 Energy
Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State's available energy source. As stated in the Initial Study,the project would demand a total of 434,460 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 1.636 million British thermal units \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24) 5-3
L A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT r`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
(16.363 therms)2 of natural gas on an annual basis.The amount of electricity consumed in San Bernardino County in 2022 was 16,629 million kWH and 562 million therms of natural gas per year.
Statewide, electricity consumption totaled 264,782 million kWH and 187,233 million therms in 20223. Therefore, the energy demands, on a state and regional level would be negligible. I.
Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level and because the proposed project's total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor,the proposed project would not conflict with California's energy conservation plans as described in the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report.4 Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed to CALGreen standards, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption.The proposed project would avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and not result in any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of energy.Therefore, potential impacts related to energy use would be less than significant.
5.3.4 Geology and Soils
The Initial Study determined that no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been mapped within the project site. Additionally, the Initial Study determined that implementation of Standard Condition G-1, which requires the project design to comply with the California Building Code,would ensure that potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landsliding, would be less than significant. The Initial Study stated that the City's General Plan EIR identified the on-site Soboba stony loamy sand (soils that are well drained and have a low runoff potential) as exhibiting only slight erosional tendencies.
Implementation of Standard Condition G-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Additionally, Standard Condition G-1 would ensure that potential impacts related to erosion and unstable soils would remain less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that potential impacts of the proposed project to paleontological resources would be less than significant.Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.
5.3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Initial Study determined that the single-family residential uses included in the proposed project would not include the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials.The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project did not identify any recognized environmental conditions that would result in reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. There are no existing or planned schools within 0.25 mile of the project site, and the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or within an airport land use plan.The proposed project would not substantially alter any adjacent roadways and therefore would not be expected to impair the function of nearby evacuation routes.The project site is not located within an area mapped as containing a wildland fire hazard and is surrounded by existing 2 1000,000 Btu= 1 therm
3 California Energy Commission. n.d.California Energy Consumption Database.Website:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/(accessed October 8, 2024). 4 California Energy Commission. 2023.2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. February 28. 5-4 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA r``
and planned development,further reducing the site's proximity to undeveloped wildland areas.
Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
5.3.6 Land Use and Planning
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not create any physical barriers to travel in the vicinity of the project site.The proposed project would include the development of single-family residential uses on an undeveloped site surrounded by existing residential uses. In addition, the proposed project would include an include an extension of 15th Street from the southwest corner of the project site to the terminus of East 15th Street and therefore would increase opportunities for vehicular and pedestrian access in the area.Therefore,the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.The Initial Study also determined that the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Land Use goals and policies that are designed to enhance community services, reduce air pollution, GHG emissions, and traffic congestion by promoting quality development, fostering land use compatibility, and balancing Upland's jobs-to-housing ratio.Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.
5.3.7 Mineral Resources
The project site is located within an urban area on a developed site.Additionally,the California Geological Survey does not identify known mineral resources or mineral recovery sites within or adjacent to the project site.Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State or the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site.
5.3.8 Population and Housing
The proposed project would not result in substantial unplanned for growth in the area, as the project would contribute to the overall number of housing units as contemplated under the General Plan buildout of Upland. Based on Upland's current average household size of 2.94 persons,the proposed project would increase the city's population by 191 persons.This growth would account for 0.23 percent of the projected 2040 Upland population and 0.22 percent of the projected 2040 households. The addition of 189 residents within Upland would result in population growth within Upland; however,this additional population is consistent with the city, county, and regional (SCAG) growth projections.The proposed project would not include the removal of any existing residential uses and therefore would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant.
5.3.9 Public Services
The Initial Study determined that the San Bernardino County Fire District would provide adequate service to the project site.The proposed project design would be submitted to and approved by the San Bernardino County Fire Department prior the issuance of building permits. Furthermore, the project would be required to pay development impact fees (DIFs) used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public safety structures and purchasing equipment for new public safety structures.
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24) 5-5
L A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT r`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
As stated above,the proposed project would represent 0.23 percent of Upland's population in 2040.
Therefore, new police protection facilities would not be required to serve the site. In addition,the Initial Study determined that the payment of DIFs would ensure that any impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
The proposed project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees, which under Senate Bill 50 are deemed to be full and complete mitigation for the generation of new students.
The proposed project would include private and public open space and contribute development impact fees that would address infrastructure and service needs and would not result in substantial deterioration of parks or other public facilities. Therefore,the proposed project's impacts to public services would be less than significant.
5.3.10 Recreation
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description,the proposed project would include 1.02 acres of private common open space. A 0.23-acre recreational area is planned with a community pool, pool house with restrooms, picnic tables, a children's play area, and barbeque and picnic areas. Five additional pocket parks totaling 0.79 acres would be located throughout the project site and would include landscaping, children's play equipment, exercise equipment, and benches.Therefore,the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could result. Impacts associated with the development of these facilities can all be mitigated to a less than significant level with the recommended mitigation measures.
The City maintains a performance standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.The City maintains 286.1 acres of developed parkland, including parkland obtained through joint use agreements with Upland Unified School District.5 Upland's population is estimated to be 78,841.6 Therefore, 236.5 acres of parkland are required to maintain the City's performance standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents.As indicated above, Upland consists of 286.1 acres of developed parkland.Therefore, the City currently exceeds its parkland performance standard by
49.6 acres.
The City exceeds its parkland performance standard by 49.65 acres and therefore has sufficient recreational amenities for Upland's existing population plus up to an additional 16,533 persons.
Additionally,the proposed project does not include any modifications to the City's existing parkland or recreational facilities.Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing park facilities to serve the proposed development. Therefore,the proposed project's impacts on recreational facilities would be less than significant. 5 City of Upland,State of California. 2015.Final Program EIR, General Plan Update,SCH No. 2012041006.
6 United States Census Bureau. n.d.Quickfacts: Upland city,California.Website: https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/table/uplandcitycalifornia,losangelescitycalifornia/LFE305222 (accessed February 9, 2024). 5-6 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND,CALIFORNIA Jr(`
5.3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would be adequately served by wastewater, water, and storm water facilities and that existing water entitlements and solid waste capacity would be sufficient.Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
5.3.12 Wildfire
The project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA)for fire protection and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact related to wildfire.
5.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CECW Considerations.docx(10/14/24) 5-7
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Jr`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
5-8 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\5.0 Other CECW Considerations.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J�`
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,that could attain most of the project's basic objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project. An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative to a project, rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
As an EIR identifies ways to mitigate or avoid significant effects that a project may have on the environment,the discussion of alternatives should focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects of the project.The EIR needs to include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project, the significant effects of the alternative should be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project.The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason"that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives "whose effect cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative."
As described in more detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project would involve development of the project site with 65 single-family residential units, as well as circulation improvements, associated open space, circulation and loading, infrastructure improvements, and basin modification.
As provided by the project sponsor, the objectives of the proposed project are to:
• Create a distinctive community design with a well-designed entry, streetscapes, walls, and entry monument.
• Provide for architectural diversity within the community with varying residential floor plans and architectural styles.
• Provide for on-site recreational opportunities for residents through provision of common area open space within the community offering active and passive recreational amenities for all age groups.
• Design a development plan which ensures the community is adequately served by public facilities, infrastructure, and utilities without the need for extensions or improvements to existing public facilities.
• Incorporate green and sustainable design features into the development plan. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24) C-1
L C A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J``` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED
2024
The potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.The proposed project has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters and in the Initial Study(Appendix A-5), with an emphasis on evaluating significant impacts resulting from the project and identifying mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. It should be noted that all of the impacts identified for the proposed project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
The two alternatives to the proposed project that are discussed and evaluated in this chapter are the following:
• No Project Alternative: Under the No Project alternative,the project site would continue to be undeveloped. No modifications to the circulation network or infrastructure would occur. • Reduced Density/Conservation Alternative: Under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative,the project site would be developed with residential uses, similar to the proposed project, but would be reduced in size in order to avoid impacts to the Scale broom scrub natural community on the project site. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with 45 single-family residential units. Infrastructure improvements and the extension of 15th Street would still occur, although a reduced amount of open space would be provided on the project site.
These alternatives represent a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the proposed project in light of the objective of further reducing impacts that are already less than significant with mitigation as identified in this EIR. A few other potential alternatives were also considered, as discussed later in this chapter; however, none of these alternatives would substantially reduce or avoid the environmental impacts of the proposed project and/or would not meet many of the basic project objectives and were therefore ultimately not selected for further analysis.
The purpose of this discussion of alternatives to the proposed project is to enable decision makers to evaluate the project by considering how alternatives to the project as proposed might reduce or avoid the project's impacts on the physical environment. The analysis in this chapter provides both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the environmental impacts that could be associated with each alternative and compares those potential impacts to those identified for the proposed project as described in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures of this EIR.
6.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The following provides a description of the No Project alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts.The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the No Project alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
C-2 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J�`
6.1.1 Principal Characteristics
The No Project alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be developed and that the project site would generally remain in its current condition.The project site would continue to be undeveloped. Infrastructure improvements within and adjacent to the project site, include the extension of 15th Street, would not occur.
6.1.2 Analysis of the No Project Alternative
The potential impacts associated with the No Project alternative are described below.As discussed, the No Project alternative would avoid all of the less than significant impacts of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. However, the No Project alternative would also not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project.
6.1.2.1 Aesthetics
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any new construction on the project site and therefore would not introduce any new buildings or structures that could have substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas, conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality, cast any new shadows, or create any new light or glare. Similar to the proposed project,the No Project alternative would not be located near a State scenic highway.Therefore, compared to the less than significant impacts of the proposed project,there would be no impacts related to aesthetics.
6.1.2.2 Air Quality
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any construction activity within the project site, nor would new residents be located on the site.As a result, pollutant and odor concentrations would not be increased and dust, exhaust, and organic emissions related to construction would not be generated. In addition,this alternative would not result in the development of residential uses and would not result in an increase in operational vehicle trips in the city;therefore,the No Project alternative would not result in the less than significant impacts related to Clean Air Plan implementation. Compared to the less than significant impacts of the proposed project,there would be no impacts related to air quality.
6.1.2.3 Biological Resources
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any construction activity within the project site and therefore would not result in the removal of any vegetation, sensitive natural communities, or special-status species habitats.Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would not be required to reduce impacts to special-status species or jurisdictional drainage features.As the site would be retained in its current condition, the No Project alternative would not conflict with local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources or any habitat conservation plan.
6.1.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any construction activity within the project site. As a result,this alternative would not result in the generation of construction-period \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24) C-3
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J``` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Similarly,the No Project alternative would not result in an increase in VMT, daily vehicle trips, or utility use (i.e., electricity,water, and wastewater) on the project site;therefore,the No Project alternative would not result in the less than significant project impacts related to operational-period GHG emissions and potential conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing the emission of GHGs. With implementation of the No Project alternative, there would be no impact on GHG emissions.
6.1.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any construction activity within the project site.Therefore, the No Project alternative would not result in any changes to the existing drainage patterns or water quality in the vicinity of the site that would violate any water quality standards or result in flooding or erosion.The project site would continue to operate as a surplus piece of the 15th Street Flood Control Basin, and therefore would not decrease groundwater supplies as no groundwater would be used at the site. Similarly,the No Project alternative would not result in the less than significant impacts related to the release of pollutants in a flood zone or a conflict with a water quality control plan, as there would be no development on the site. With implementation of the No Project alternative,there would be no impact related to hydrology and water quality.
6.1.2.6 Noise and Vibration
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any demolition or construction activity within the project site, nor would new employees be located on the site.Therefore,the No Project alternative would not expose surrounding land uses to short-term noise or vibration during construction and implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-9 would not be required. Noise at the project site would not increase above that already occurring on the site and no increase in traffic noise would occur. With implementation of the No Project alternative,there would be no impact related to noise.
6.1.2.7 Transportation
Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in any increases in automobile, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel to or from the project site, as the site is anticipated to remain in its current vacant condition.Therefore, compared to the less than significant impacts of the proposed project,there would be no impact related to conflicts with applicable transportation- related plans, policies and ordinances;vehicle miles traveled (VMT); design hazards; and emergency access.
6.1.2.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative no project-related ground disturbance would take place within the project site;therefore, no potential to disturb tribal cultural resources would occur. In the absence of any disturbance or corresponding impact, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 would not be required.
C-4 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J�`
6.2 Reduced Density/Conservation Alternative
The following provides a description of the 45-unit single-family residential alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated environmental impacts of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant environmental impacts and would or would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
6.2.1 Principal Characteristics
The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative assumes that the project site would still be developed with single-family residential uses, similar to the proposed project, but that only approximately 45 units would be developed on the site to avoid potential impacts to the scale broom scrub on the project site,which is a sensitive natural community.The scale broom scrub community is just north of the existing residential uses along the north side of East 15th Street; therefore,the residential units proposed by the project would only be west of the existing residential uses under this alternative. The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would continue to include common open space areas on the project site similar to the proposed project, though the overall size would be reduced with the reduction in the developed area on the project site by approximately 1.85 acres.'The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would also continue to include the infrastructure improvements from the proposed project, including the extension of East 15th Street basin and would similarly require modification of a portion of the remaining basin.
6.2.2 Analysis of the Reduced Density/Conservation Alternative The potential impacts associated with the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative are described below.As discussed, the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would avoid one of the potential significant biological resources impacts and generally reduce the already less-than-significant impacts related to air quality, GHGs, and noise as a reduced amount of construction would occur on the project site. However, as discussed below, all of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would still apply. In addition,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would achieve the objectives of the proposed project, although not to the same extent as the proposed project, as the site would be developed with 20 fewer residential uses.
6.2.2.1 Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, similar to the proposed project,the project site would be developed with residential uses, although fewer residential units and less open space would be developed as compared to the proposed project. Residential units included in the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would be similar in size and style to the proposed project and located in the same general location, and therefore would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics. Similar to the proposed project, impacts to scenic vistas, conflicts with applicable 1 Based on the latest site plan, units 24 through 43 would not be developed under this alternative.The enhanced public access to the basin trail would be maintained. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24) 6-5
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J``` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
regulations governing scenic quality, new shadows, and creation of new light and glare would be less than significant. However,these impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project as the density on the project site would be reduced, allowing for more existing views to remain and fewer new sources of light and glare. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant with implementation of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative.
6.2.2.2 Air Quality
Development of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would result in construction activity within the project site, although the construction duration would be slightly less with the reduced project size. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in an increase in pollutant and odor concentrations during the construction period and would generate dust, exhaust, and organic emissions related to construction. However, this increase would be less than the increase resulting from the proposed project, and therefore this impact would remain less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in development of residential uses on the project site and would result in an increase in operational vehicle trips compared to existing conditions, and therefore would result in an increase in mobile source pollutants within the City, although to a lesser extent than the proposed project. Construction activity associated with the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would still result in less-than-significant construction- period health risk to off-site receptors.Therefore, impacts on air quality would be less than significant similar to, but less than, the proposed project.
6.2.2.3 Biological Resources
Under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, similar to the proposed project,the project site would be developed with residential uses, although fewer residential units and less open space would be developed as compared to the proposed project.The residential units would only be located west of the existing residential uses along the northern side of East 15th Street, and therefore would not impact the Scale broom scrub community, which is a sensitive natural community and therefore a special-status species, located on the project site.Therefore, compared to the proposed project,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would lessen impacts related to special-status species.The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would be in the same general area as the proposed project, and therefore impacts to the coastal whiptail, nesting birds, burrowing owls, and Crotch's bumble bee would not be avoided, and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6 would still be required. In addition, although impacts to Drainage 3 would be reduced compared to the proposed project,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would continue to result in impacts to the existing jurisdictional waters on the project site, including Drainages 1, 2, and a portion of Drainage 3.Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 through BIO-9 would still be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Similar to the proposed project,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would continue to have less-than-significant impacts related to local policies and ordinances and habitat conservation plans.
C-6 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J�`
6.2.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Development of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would result in construction activity within the project site, although the construction period would be slightly less with the reduced project size. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in an increase in construction-period GHG emissions; this increase would be less than the less-than-significant impact identified for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in development of residential uses on the project site and would result in an increase in operational vehicle trips compared to existing conditions, and therefore would result in an increase in mobile source emissions within the City, although to a lesser extent than the proposed project.Therefore, the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would continue to have a less-than-significant impact related to operational GHG emissions as daily vehicle trips. With implementation of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant similar to, but less than,the proposed project.
6.2.2.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Development of the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would result in construction activity within the project site, although the construction period would be slightly less with the reduced project size. Similar to the proposed project,this alternative would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns and runoff from the project site that could violate water quality standards or result in erosion or flooding off-site. However, similar to the proposed project, compliance with existing regulations, including the General Construction Storm Water Permit and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),would continue to be required and reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would be located in the same location as the proposed project, and therefore would result in the same less- than-significant impacts related to groundwater use and flood hazards. The Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would result in the same less-than-significant impacts to hydrology and water quality as the proposed project.
6.2.2.6 Noise and Vibration
Under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, noise at the project site would increase above that already occurring on the project site.Although the 20 units on the eastern portion of the developed area would not be constructed under this alternative, activity in this area would still require the use of earth-moving equipment, which would generate noise increases perceptible to sensitive receivers R5 and R6 (located directly to the south) and in excess of thresholds.Although the location and duration of construction noise may be altered, construction noise impacts at sensitive receivers would remain significant.Traffic noise level increases would also occur,though to a lesser degree than under the proposed project.This impact would be less than significant under both the proposed project and the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative. In addition, similar to the proposed project,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would include vibration- generating construction activities that would exceed maximum acceptable vibration for daytime residential uses, as new residential units would still be located adjacent to the existing residential units along East 15th Street. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-9 would be equally applicable to development under this alternative. As with the proposed project,with implementation of the \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24) 6-7
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J``` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, impacts related to noise and vibration would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.2.2.7 Transportation
Under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative, similar to the proposed project,the project site would be developed with residential uses, although fewer residential units would be developed compared to the proposed project.The transportation and circulation changes under the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and vehicle trips would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.Therefore,the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts related to policy conflicts, VMT, design hazards, and emergency vehicle access as the proposed project.
6.2.2.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, ground disturbance would still take place within traditional uses area or ancestral territory of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation and/or the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. Due to extensive past disturbance of the project site during past construction and maintenance of the basin,there exists a low potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites in the project site. Despite this low potential and the apparent absence of tribal cultural resource within the limits of the project site, as established during consultation, ground disturbance may potentially impact such resources that were previously undetected. While the area of ground disturbance may be reduced, a similar potential exists previously undetected tribal cultural materials could be encountered during project activities. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-5 would be equally applicable to development of the project site under this alternative.
Similar to the proposed project,the implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
6.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS During the Notice of Preparation comment period, the City received verbal and written suggestions for the identification and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project (see Appendix A of this EIR).The following provides a description of the alternative that was identified and considered, and the reasons why it was ultimately not selected for further evaluation in this EIR. • Off-Site Locations:An alternative location was not considered for analysis because the project sponsor does not own or would not feasibly otherwise be able to gain control of a suitable vacant site within Upland. If the proposed project were relocated to a different site that is not as well served by infrastructure and transit, impacts related to transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions (primarily related to VMT) could be more significant than those identified in this EIR for the proposed project.Therefore, such an alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Based on the above analysis,the No Project alternative would have the fewest impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative. Under CEQA, if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative 6-8 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J�`
from among the other alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). While the No Project alternative would be environmentally superior in the technical sense in that contribution to the aforementioned impacts would not occur, it would also fail to achieve any of the project's objectives.
As discussed above, the Reduced Density/Conservation alternative would further reduce the less than significant with mitigation impacts of the proposed project related to construction, special- status species, and temporary construction-related noise.Therefore, the Reduced Density/ Conservation alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24) 6-9
L A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ``` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
6-10 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\6.0 Alternatives.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
7.0 REFERENCES
Aspen Environmental Group. 2023a. Biological Resources Technical Report(Tract No. 20245).
January.
. 2023b.Aquatic Resources Delineation Report(Tract No. 20245). September.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Website: https://www.baagmd.gov/— /media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf(accessed January 9, 2023).
Bureau of Reclamation. 2020. Environmental Water Account Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR to the Environmental Water Account Final EIS/EIR, Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region, Sacramento, California.
Bush-Winter Correspondence.January 4, 2022. Groundwater Recharge Report and Diagrams.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000a. Fact Sheet—California's Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. October. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ documents/guidance-documents (accessed January 2023).
. 2000b. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Prepared by the Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/guidance- documents (accessed January 2023).
. 2007a. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. . 2007b. "ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32," News Release 07-46. October 25.
. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf(accessed July 5, 2022).
. 2017a. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. . 2017b.Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf(accessed January 2023).
. 2020. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10)• Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed January 2023). . 2022a.2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf(accessed January 2023). \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx«10/14/24» 7-1
L SA VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
. 2022b. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. October 26. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/ cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf(accessed January 2023). . 2022c. Air Pollution and Health. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/health-air- pollution (accessed July 5, 2022).
. 2023. Cap-and-Trade Program. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm (accessed January 2023).
. n.d.-a. GHGs Descriptions &Sources in California. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg- descriptions-sources (accessed January 2023).
. n.d.-b. iADAM:Air Quality Data Statistics. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam (accessed July 5, 2022).
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/(accessed June 2022).
California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. Natural Communities. Website:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities (accessed September 2023).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013.Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.Table 19.
. 2023. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd (accessed September 2023).
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. October.
California Department of Water Resources. 2006. California Groundwater Bulletin 118, Hydrologic Region South Coast, Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin, Chino Subbasin.January
20. . 2020. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, 2019 Basin Prioritization. May. . 2023a. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Website: https://gis.water.ca.gov/ app/bbat/(accessed October 2023).
. 2023b. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp- dashboard/final/(accessed October 2023).
7-2 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L S A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
. n.d. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. Website: https://water.ca.gov/ Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management (accessed July 5, 2022).
California Energy Commission. 2023.2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. February 28.
California Environmental Protection Agency(CalEPA). 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. December.
California Environmental Protection Agency(CalEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005.Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:A Community Health Perspective. April.
California Geological Survey. 2022. California Tsunami Maps. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed October 2023).
Chino Groundwater Basin-CBWCD. 2016. CBWCD-ArcGIS Map Viewer. Website:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0443a668d67f4df1b0aced75e7b9f63e (accessed June 20, 2022)
City of Upland. 2015a. Upland General Plan: Open Space and Conservation Element. Website:
https://www.uplandca.gov/general-plan-map (accessed January 9, 2023). . 2015b.Section 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant. City of Upland General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report. September.
. 2015c. City of Upland General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element. Website:
https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/ftp/city_departments/development_services/planning/ general_plan_map/pdfs/06_Open%20Space-Conservation%20Element%20- %20revised%20map.pdf(accessed January 2023).
. 2015d. Final Program Environmental Impact Report, pages 5.6-19 to 5.6-32. September 28.
Website: https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/files/DevelopmentServices/Environmental %20Review%20Documents/FINAL%20GENERAL%2OPLAN%20EIR%20with%20comments %2000MBINED.pdf(accessed July 7, 2022).
. 2015e. Final Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update(GPU 08-03), Zoning Code Update(ZCU 08-03), Climate Action Plan, and Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update. September.
. 2015f. General Plan, Chapter 9, Safety Element.
. 2015g. Zoning Map. City of Upland Zoning Code Update. September 14. Website:
https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/files/Zoning%20Map%20081616.pdf(Accessed May 2022).
. 2015h. Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx«10/14/24» 7-3
L S A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
. 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2017- scoping-plan-documents (accessed January 2023).
. 2020. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Villa Serena Specific Plan Project.April.
. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan.June 2021. Website: https://www.uplandca.gov/uploads/files/PW/Water/Upland%202020%20 Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan.pdf(accessed June 20, 2022). . 2022.2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf , accessed January 2023.
City of Upland, State of California. 2015. Final Program EIR, General Plan Update, SCH No. 2012041006. Page 5.20-7. Certified September 28, 2015.
Deborah Linn Planning Consultant. 2024. Villa Serena Specific Plan, City of Upland.
Dugan Biological Services. 2023. Villa Serena Specific Plan;Nesting Bird and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment. May.
ECORP. 2023.Archaeological Resources Inventory Report for the Villa Serena Project, San Bernardino County, California. March.
Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). 2023. National Flood Hazard Layer(NFHL) Viewer, Map No. 06071C8607H, effective August 28, 2008. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/ search?AddressQuery=East%2015th%20Street%2C%20Upland%2C%2OCA(accessed October 2023).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No.
PB2006-109012.August.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006a.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Table 8-1.
. 2006b.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Table 12-3. . 2018.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123.
September. Website: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf(accessed June 20, 2022).
Fehr Peers. 2020. City of Upland Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Website:
https://www.uplandca.gov/vehicle-miles-traveled (accessed August 2023). 7_4 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L S A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
Geotek Inc. 2018a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.APN 1045-121-02 and 1045-151-34.
Upland, San Bernardino County, California. October.
. 2018b. Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for Proposed Single-Family Residential Development,Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1045-121-02 & 1045-151-34, Upland Colonies 59, North of East 15th Street, Upland, San Bernardino County, California. Page 5. . 2019. Slope Stability Evaluation—New Basin,Tentative Tract 20245, Upland, San Bernardino County, California. September 16.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2016. Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Implementing Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013).January 20.
. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 18.
Website: opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf(accessed April 2023).
Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,Third Edition.
Hickman,J.C. 1996. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. 3rd edition.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. February. Website: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/ assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf(accessed January 2023).
Legislative Analyst's Office. 2001. An Evaluation of the School Facility Fee Affordable Housing Assistance Programs.January. https://lao.ca.gov/2001/011701_school_facility_fee.pdf (accessed April 25, 2022).
LSA Associates, Inc. 2019. Biological Resources Assessment for The Commons, Cities of Claremont and Upland, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. December.
Madole &Associates. 2017. Recharge Exhibits, Pre-and Post- Developed Conditions. . 2021. Letter to Ms. Freeburn-Marquez, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
November 1.
. n.d. City of Upland Precise Grading Plans Tract No. 20245.
Miller, R., and L. Busch. 2007. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete- Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. California Geological Survey. Requested April 25, 2022.
Munz, P.A. 1974.A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley: University of California Press. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx«10/14/24» 7-5
L S A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
NETR online. 2022. Historic Aerials, Map Viewer. Website: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed June 21, 2022).
Origin Biological. 2023.San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment for a 26.3 acre parcel located in Upland, San Bernardino County, California, January.
Q3 Consulting. 2018. 15th Street Basin Modifications Review and Recommendations. June 29, 2018. (Revised July 31, 2018).
RCA Associates. Inc. 2018. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for a Proposed Commercial Development on a 10-acre Site in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California. (Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 5, Mt. Baldy, California USGS 7.5' Quadrangle).
July 16.
San Bernardino County. 2020.About the Policy Plan. Website: https://countywideplan.com/policy- plan/(accessed July 5, 2022).
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority(SBCTA). 2021. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. March. Website: https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional- greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/(accessed July 7, 2022).
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan. Chapter 3:
Beneficial Uses. Santa Ana Basin Plan.January 24, 1995; Updated June 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/2019/ New/Chapter_3_June_2019.pdf(accessed June 20, 2022).
. 2020. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)for the Santa Ana Basin, amendments adopted up through December 14, 2020. Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/ water_issues/programs/basin_plan/(accessed October 2023).
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 2019. One Water One Watershed Plan 2018:Moving Forward Together. January.
Sibley, D.A. 2016. Sibley Birds West: Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Knopf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. . 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.
Website: http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds (accessed January 2023). . 2016. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf (accessed July 5, 2022).
7-6 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L S A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality- management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/cover-and-opening.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (accessed June 22, 2022).
. 2022. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2. Website:
http://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan (accessed January 9, 2023).
. 2023a.South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. . 2023b. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,June. Website:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-Ist-methodology-document.pdf(accessed June 22, 2022). . n.d. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website:
http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf(accessed June 22, 2022).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2019. Local Profiles Report 2019, Profile of the City of Upland, page 3. May. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/upland_localprofile.pdf?1606014822 (accessed January 2023). . 2020a. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. September 3.
Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0 . pdf?1606001176 (accessed January 2023).
. 2020b. Demographics and Growth Forecast, page 40. September 1. Website:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics- and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed January 2023).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010. Water Quality(WQ) Order R8-2010-0036 NPDES No. CAS618036.
Stebbins, R.C. 2023. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). n.d. GHG Data from UNFCCC.
Website: unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas- data/ghg-data-unfccc/ghg-data-from-unfccc (accessed January 2023).
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007.Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. Website: https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/ regulatory/jd/jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf(accessed July 5, 2022). \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx«10/14/24» 7-7
L S A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OCTOBER 2024
United States Census Bureau. n.d. Quickfacts: Upland city, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/uplandcitycaIifornia,losa ngelescitycalifornia/ LFE305222 (accessed February 9, 2024).
United States Department of Agriculture. 2022. Acres of Large Urban Built-Up Land. Website:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/results/?cid= nrcs143_013853 (accessed April 2022).
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. WebSoil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov(accessed June 21, 2022).
United States Department of Energy. 2022. Alternative Fueling Station Locator. Website:
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?location=Upland,%2OCA(Accessed June 22, 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States& Caravell v. United States.
June 6, 2007, and revised December 2, 2008. Website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/ files/2016-02/documents/cwajurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf(accessed July 5, 2022).
. 2016. Black Carbon, Basic Information. November 29. Website: https://www3.epa.gov/ airquality/blackcarbon/basic.html (accessed January 2023). . 2021. Air Quality Data. Website: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data (accessed July 5, 2022).
. 2022. Air Quality and Climate Change Research. November 8. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-quality-and-climate-change-research (accessed January 2023).
. 2023. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020.April 19. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (accessed May 2023).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. National Wetlands Inventory,ArcGIS Viewer. Website: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed June 21, 2022).
. 2022b. USFWS Critical Habitat,ArcGIS Viewer. Website: https://www.arcgis.com/home/ webmap/viewer.html?url= https://services.arcgis.com/QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/ser vices/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd (accessed June 21, 2022).
Urban Crossroads. 2022. Villa Serena Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)Screening Evaluation. July 20. . 2024a. Villa Serena Specific Plan Air Quality& Greenhouse Gas Assessment. June 27. 7-8 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L SA OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
. 2024b. Villa Serena Noise Assessment.
. 2024c. Villa Serena(Tract 20245) Traffic Impact Analysis. April 23.
Whitaker,J.O. 1980.The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A Knopf, Inc.
World Health Organization. 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx«10/14/24» 7_9
L C A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/``
OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
7-10 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\7.0 References.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT LSA A
OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND,CALIFORNIA J/(_`
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
The individuals listed below were responsible for drafting and reviewing this Environmental Impact Report and its supporting technical reports and appendices.
CITY OF UPLAND
Robert Dalquest AICP, MPA, MURP, Director, Development Services Department Joshua Winter, Senior Planner
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Amanda Durgan, Principal in Charge
Carl Winter, Senior Environmental Planner
Mitchell Alexander, GIS Specialist
Beverly Inloes,Associate/Editor
Matt Phillips,Associate/Graphics
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
Biological Resources Technical Report and Aquatic Resources Report Jacob Aragon, Biologist Biological
Justin Wood, Senior Biologist
DUGAN BIOLOGICAL SERVICES
Nesting Bird and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment Eric Dugan, Biologist
ECORP CONSULTING, INC.
Archaeological Resources Survey
Julian Acuna, RPA
Evelyn Hildebrand, RPA
Sonia Sifuentes, RPA
ORIGIN BIOLOGICAL
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and California Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment Mikael Romich, Senior Biologist
URBAN CROSSROADS
Air Quality&Greenhouse Assessment, Noise Assessment,Traffic Analysis,VMT Screening Haseeb Qureshi,Air Quality&Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Ali Dadabhoy,Air Quality& Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Bill Lawson, PE, INCE, Noise Assessment
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\8.0 List of Preparers.docx«10/14/24» 8-1
L C A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
UPLAND,CALIFORNIA RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/``
OCTOBER 2024
Charlene So, PE,Traffic Analysis
Aric Evatt,Traffic Analysis
Alexander So, Senior Associate, VMT Screening
8_2 \\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\8.0 List of Preparers.docx(10/14/24)
VOLUME II
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
RECIRCULATED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDICES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022020150
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
LSA
October 2024
This page intentionally left blank
VOLUME II
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
RECIRCULATED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDICES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022020150
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Joshua Winter, Senior Planner
City of Upland
Development Services Department/Planning Division
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Prepared by:
LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
510.236.6810
Project No. TC12201
L SA
October 2024
This page intentionally left blank
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT L C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA J r(`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume II
APPENDICES
A-1: NOTICE OF PREPARATION
A-2: NOP COMMENT LETTERS
A-3: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION
A-4: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY
A-5: INITIAL STUDY
B: VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN
C: AIR QUALITY-GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
D-1: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
D-2: SAN BERNARDINO KANGAROO RAT AND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ASSESSMENT D-3: NESTING BIRD AND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ASSESSMENT D-4: AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
E: GROUNDWATER RECHARGE DATA
F: NOISE ASSESSMENT
G-1: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
G-2: VMT SCREENING EVALUATION
H: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\0-Cover-Title-TOC-VOL II.docx(10/14/24)
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Jr(` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\DM only\0-Cover-Title-TOC-VOL Il.docx(10/14/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND,CALIFORNIA J/(_`
APPENDIX A-1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices-Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx(10/15/24)
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices-Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx(10/15/24)
Notice of Preparation
Notice of Preparation
To: Interested Agencies/Organizations From: City of Upland 460 N. Euclid Avenue
(Address) Upland, CA V17136
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Upland will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below.We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study( ❑ is 0 is not) attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law,your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Joshua Winter, Associate Planner at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tract No. 20245) Project Applicant,if any: The Colonies Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership Date February 8, 2022 Signature
Title Associate Planner
Telephone (909) 931 -4143
Reference:California Code of Regulations,Title 14,(CEQA Guidelines)Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375.
AOFU.PL
is,
ti ,� /,,, CITY OF UPLAND
' 7 -`'- .;-- ,`' NOTICE OF PREPARATION
3 kg : 1' 4 - •• of a DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN
Date: February 8, 2022
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP)for the Villa Serena Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
To: State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, Interested Organizations
Lead Agency/Sponsor: City of Upland, Planning Division
Project Title: Villa Serena Specific Plan
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Upland will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Villa Serena Specific Plan. The City is the lead agency for the project. The purpose of this notice is to (1) serve as a Notice of Preparation of an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15082, (2) advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the project.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION: The City of Upland, as Lead Agency, requests that responsible and trustee agencies respond in a manner consistent with § 15082(b)of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA§ 21080.4, responsible agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. The public review period will commence on Tuesday, February 8, 2022, and will close on Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 6:00 pm. A copy of the NOP will be available at the Upland Public Library,450 North Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786 during open hours or the Upland City Hall Bulletin Board and the Development Services Department/Planning Division Public Counter, located at Upland City Hall, 460 North Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786, counter hours are Monday through Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM., excluding holidays.
Copies of the NOP are also available for review on the City's website at https://www.uplandca.gov/environmental-review
WRITTEN COMMENTS: We ask that any person wishing to comment on the NOP provide written comments by the end of the public review period, Wednesday, March 9, 2022, at 6:00 pm, addressed to Joshua Winter, Associate Planner, City of Upland—Planning Division, at:
Email: [email protected] Or by mail to: Joshua Winter, City of Upland Development Services Department,
Planning Division
460 North Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project Site constitutes a 9.2-acre portion of the existing 15th Street flood control detention basin located North of E. 15th Street,South of the Upland Hills Golf Course, East of Campus Avenue and West of Grove Avenue.The project site is further described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 1045-121-04 and 1045- 151-35.
EXISTING CONDITONS: The Project Site constitutes a portion of the existing 15th Street flood control detention basin which is bounded by residential uses and the Upland Hills Country Club on the north, and single-family residential uses on the east, west, and south (Figure 1 — Vicinity Map). The City has determined the 9.2-acre portion of the flood control detention basin comprising the Site to be a surplus parcel. The remaining 11.1 acres of the flood control detention basin as adequate for continued flood control operations pursuant to completion of modifications to portions of the basin made as part of the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The project involves the establishment of a Residential Specific Plan for the development a gated residential community that consists of 65 single-family detached residential units at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre and on-site active and passive recreational amenities to be provided within the common area open space on an existing 9.2-acre portion of the 15th street flood control detention basin. The Project includes modifications (including relocation of existing basin infrastructure)to the existing basin to accommodate the residential Site and maintain a fully operational flood control and retention facility on the remaining 11.1 acres of the basin area.
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: As authorized by the State CEQA Guidelines, based on preliminary review,the City determined that it would prepare an EIR for the proposed project, and therefore, it is beginning work directly on the EIR process and will focus on potentially significant effects of the proposed project in that EIR,while briefly indicating the reasons that other effects will not be potentially significant. An Initial Study is not required to determine that an EIR will be prepared and is therefore not attached. The City EIR will discuss potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, including potential pre-construction, construction, and operations impacts. The EIR will analyze potential environmental effects of the project, including: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.
Figure 1-Vicinity Map
. •
- E16thST , s
,., ti.
•k
ill
/r. —WI *•# —
1 • r: r
go 0
■ '' ' E 115c S- _ ! - i4, +' �" •
...4..._a..x- 1*• 11.4,
I'iti .rt O . 1. !!! 1101- 14 . i
„is...I_
.te „. .v 'lir,.
FI .474. . tip4d........dirimirv
.� Li: • •. . i - WI
3. +
Alta
•
. N t Project Vicinity - - . . 'frt. 4 L.. .i. - 0- ' •• 1 . tdo4 prow' drruseo ° �• •. • ,± '' .
LiXitl COX a�`� . T . . *IN +s ' 1 r awry - .r -.A s. ' ' ''
.
l*Mh• 11 , '
sr'yl'1 i! 11LiMalit fl! i} I. , t
•
i.. - F.
;; 7riRar ill1 1 S-ice- tilt; .- ' , 41 Pry *+-
1---,14:Air motorms-- i
t 1.-____,. ,ir ingdove ii
ilir -if din LIE
r.l. , Oranire cilli IIF4ru' Alpill..`'::'-1 . 0 t 10 ' w
"Pe
'P..- II: of 3744
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices-Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx(10/15/24)
RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT C A OCTOBER 2024 UPLAND,CALIFORNIA J/(_`
APPENDIX A-2
NOP COMMENT LETTERS
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices-Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx(10/15/24)
LC A VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT J/`` UPLAND,CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024
This page intentionally left blank
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TC12201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices-Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx(10/15/24)
Bill Rodstrom Public Comments for the Villa Serena NOP
March 9, 2022
To Joshua Winter, Associate Planner, City of Upland
From Bill Rodstrom, former U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist Dear Mr. Winter,
I'll start off with a comment regarding my earlier letter Response to Joshua Winter's comments regarding my letter of November 17, 2019 Responses to Public Comments for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration General Response:
"It should also be noted Mr. Rodstrom's career since the late 1980's has been based in inner northern California per his public profile. This species is found mainly in the coastal plains of southern California." Actually, I grew up in East San Diego and La Mesa in habitat similar to Upland, and after moving to coastal Northern California in 1971, I visited my parents in La Mesa and birded in Coastal San Diego County one of more times a year between 1971 and 2011 (40 years) until my last parent died, including participating in Christmas Bird Counts in Oceanside and coastal Santa Barbara County. I worked for U.C. Irvine for several years and birded in that vicinity,so I am familiar with Southern California birds. I also visited my father-in-law several times a year between 2000 and 2021, who lived near Grove and 15th Street, and would explore the 15th street flood control basin one or more times when I visited him, over 20 years.
I have also participated in Christmas bird counts nearly every year since 1975, including 2021, often birding with prominent birdwatchers such as Gary Lester. I also have been participating in nearly annual birdathons, (I missed the 2021 birdathonto avoid catching Covid-19)usually in the first week of May to see as many species of birds as possible in a 24-hour period.Our four-person teams usually see over 130 species of birds in one 24- hour period,teams that include very expert California birders such as Gary Fried richsen and Ken Burton.While I'm no expert on birds, I am a very experienced birder, having seen roughly 600 species of North American birds.
I have also posted nearly 1,400 natural history observations using the iNaturalist program https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/billrod9Most of these observations from the proposed Villa Serena project site were confirmed by experts in those fields.
My comments will focus on threatened species,flood control capacity, nature deficit disorder, wetlands, and mitigation issues
Threatened Species
I was shocked to see that the whole project area had been bulldozed flat in May 2020. Was this legal? The Colonies Partners had removed all of the best coastal sage scrub habitat favored by California Gnatcatchers.
That's like applying for a permit to fill a wetland after filling it in and destroying it! In my opinion,there was a small but suitable habitat for gnatcatchers, and I heard or saw gnatcatchers many times in the project area while walking alongthe south levee adjacent to 15th Street, roughly between Monte Vista Avenue and westward for several hundred yards. I am attaching before and after photos from June 2019 with healthy coastal sage scrub and June 2020 after the habitat destruction.
The bulldozed habitat should be allowed to grow back to see if gnatcatchers will return.Also,wetland habitats were destroyed or drastically altered by the bulldozing. Was this legal? Least Bell's Vireos may have been using the wetland areas, but much of their preferred habitat was also destroyed by the bulldozing.
Lastly,the bulldozed habitat should be allowed to return to see if Burrowing_0:: will use the banks of the levees to nest.
.-...,_ --':'..'r.,•• . . , .„, . ,,
--
-
,
_ :1 .- . ,_••
.„
•
--2-.--,---•,- . , - ...
.:
----:- ,-
.,
- --
.._. _. . ,.. T . ,
....
'-••'VI ',..-.:,--,'.-: _2'... 2,',,'''5'4-7.--.r'''!:'..'-','..,;:`,.:-••''.'''','Z'.'''', ..1-0'.-:•-,'.,,. .....,,-,-,.. .'.-1,-,',:'', , ,
..,''.. ..'.?.,s...," '2,..-'.',-'., „.„-.:::.:;','a-`1•5'...:.,,,-if,ii?.."3„,',...:=4,',,..., ,:.::_,,,...,,A-4.,.c,1,ty';.,„-.,-.,_ , •.•-?.. ,,,:,,.:-',.":,^45,"..,.",1,:,,-..,..... ' • ,
•,/ r,-.".i.Z4):.;,-it ... .' ,.."-•,..--....7-T .,:;._"If!:.-',,:'..t:,;.•,:.:..-••-'..:',..:„:7-5,,,,_;V..'"›.._-;-;,:;:.;:4--.;",-:. C.--:- -•:;:i.,-%,44 •k- :::-.,',..tk:,-:;-':',. -,.::',...,.: .:':',',-',.,,,7,-''-.:77 .'- 7,;.,-..,,',.--••- ...ifi;:' ,5..!,-4,,, .;' ',, 4.'?''.4.,---:.: ' 4,3* .-7:-T.Z.,. - -!,.?-4,454-,,,, ,, -_,- •*g;;-:----,-.r., --,,,....,--,.,,, ,, -,z-_,:,.-1',, -----,--- ',.-- ,4 . ..--,..., ..._- . . ,, <-7, - . .- *.,,,..-4.i-i.',..,.., ...-,.•'-'`. ,'•-,• .---,•ft4-•••r- -._':,,,,,-.---, -- --gN-...-_-,:-.1_,:z-,•-•:. ..›- '110-4.:,•;;;' ,•-:',-•.4-...•'-. .5A.--,.'..ti',..=;•,...,..; ,;..--*.--%.7.71.R....-..;- -.--se..,..i.:...... ,,.. ...N.,_.i.y -e:.'-_.--,:' '',--'-----e.,-----...,•= -
.v-1' - ••• .-•'., - --- , ::-...,1•'.„.+,..,.,k..'.,-.(',.A%,..;.,'.•,;."...:...'.,.-•'-..,,1'.'".'.,7'.'.i.,4'.,-,Si-„1'.'2,.1.¢,.-,,.-',,-',,.,,,e.l'm..',.'...',.7,'.,.'t,'.,.„,',.,.''.,'A,,.-7''.'1.'.-,,'.,.'•.,'1,'-:,:--',:,-,..2,-.-"t,:",71';,,Ai••,-,1,'%,-,,.,.=,,;•'-';"-‘.,%:--'-.'s'-,F- 1,,,'^7. -;'7.','!."S..,(,'-.''s*'',,7'l'.-•N':.,''''•--:",....-.',:'.,:,t-.i.)-.r':,'-.,',','..'4',,L.,!,.,......,',,7'',j f3:.,7..A.x'..,,7--:' -,,„"•,:,
% ,'' '., ,` ' ,:,',-'•_...''.,
, -.„ '^ -7•.`.,'-.,.-,4',;.
'-.-7--,..:.:•:,—,',•.--'.-•.--'''7_.',^'",.".-.74.7•,:.,,;.•-,.-'-,-4--.-,5,:_74_.,i,.,-',-.,.,.r.'•_L.._,,.-,_,"-.:-.__,,_-'.,-' :; .‘.k..;."-5i,
-
,
e" .'' Z
. . ' '' , , ' ,: - r' :
. ,
2 .-..-'..&-•"
.y..'2.•
--
, . '--. - -r-----;;,--.• ''-',.
,
,
W11 - : N-_,,,n4:-.s.,i.,- , -,.°-• .,---.A.•,:.-__T--.--,_--.,'.-..<.-:.-.-.(;_7r,, .,
.—. ,
--k IL, . ' :•''',-.",-,. ,ft-- .. ... . .. 5- ', 2. 71!•,‘,r'N-. .`ti,,,A--.-,,,'7',..z.Z: ,:-;,;. - „ 1\. --,...%
'flit' ,.,41g1,.
T!..;e4.e..r...N
'1- ',-,A"'''"'' 41t...."•=,- 0.:.
--r. "1 e41,4 . •
4.._41, •,-e-;: - ', r '''',''''''' ':• ,-,. .. , - - , 7:: ''-;„-.,, . ;7,Q.,1•....,•,• Ar, •,- , ' =..-.:,•Air,. .1.r*,•.,„.„,..,,N
..,,,
,t. • -...,, , ,7,,,.,, . •
..,„,
'
e• /,
, , - , -
,,„, ,,,,6.. . , --,,- •-
,
•'M. ' 4 .''A,„„*.
,,, .
• - •
, r.
.•-....• ,
•
Coastal Sage Scrub habitat at Upland Flood Control Basin, June 26, 20, 19,, ,.. . -
.._. , _
— .
.- -4. fte.4
...
... -. _.
. . _
, e. .. . • . _. ..„ .. -
---.' ''.---4-•--_,-.- . '.:_- .,,--•-•.'-.. ...
.--`..----±:^...,:-•••-_•-•,-.•=k,;...' :-:.-:-.- : -- - . .-._ 1. _...i.„.. :•-•-' - 7,-.._ _z.--=e,..-•.- -,','.---,..;,k,:.= '.. :.. -:::;•'.. _--,---1. -' -.._;, .'4474<-•-..1....',:-.'--.k,;•,..-!.',,,-•••-7-.----•••-: ';.....,•,..',.../ "... ',. -,"••""•:' -'..--. • --- _,,-- ...--•‘, ..,,,,..7-'7!,.- --. .7.7,-.1 -'-'" 2.4T-.--_- _-,.. !-•,-,..,..---4.---. , . --.` . -1.:--..-..- -'4j0.4!".•'.-- - • •
. .
, . ,. - , - _.- - • .
'n''''-'--' ''''''''•''''''''•:N.;:' :''.-.7" :'...''''''',,',4.'%';• f,,;',''•,k, 1?-0,:,-k,:4:::: ..:--',-_ ,Sr.i, .'-.--- .. ' ' ''',:-•''. --. " ' •,...',. -. '. -' . ''''. ..,,•• ,:_,-,-• i:7;%:•••.:. -;r:-;',...';','-i-'..:r'7.--4::';' 1444, -...,:., - -4.V...-4,.}___:'':i.":•.:',;'7' - -''.-'7"..---'' .'..-;;-L--z..S1--",:::::, _.,i."I..-.,..:„ . ..•„ -.. .,. .:' . -- . -.,.‘:--..,•-‘7'?,-...7. '-- '' -:**41%k.Cri7-4: 1',.....-.f:-.:---e':-',:.'''----:-",--,'.._ -..':
-.',.:-.:'''''.... ..i75,--;,..P.!-' --• '.' ' -.' .'. . .'. ' •--.''''.._:.,:::'"-t:-'71 :-..'"'T.:,:. . . . ."3'7;1::;V-.144'cr-4';'''..- -.;•''''- -' . _ -•.,.. •... -...
' '-' .•-••';',...'...41.i.,1,,,e,,,,Ska„,„_.., ..
.,
• , •,4G-''''.
_.
. •- ,-- . _.,•-
.
'' ' ' '• ','': a, 1 .. - • ' .'.ir.,', ...,!,,...4.,, ,,,,,,..-:-,-.- , .... - :,„......-„,„:„-,,,A -...v.„...v....„ . ,:..- • -, ...,:, -' - . • - - L:V 1
..•. . , :..... ..-y.:04-4,111,, ,-.:.,-.----.<--.,!--,sv.,..4_,.....,,,---vi-,3,...i.:. -1.:-,-w........,..,,,,,7 ' ' '-.-',...••• ''' . ' • ..'.-; :-• ', .,,,. . . '- ,:'-;,.• ,.:,"?7'11\N1,7.--'''''''''.'•:tC:C'177':'''t.• ...-I'''s0.1P::;,.:%`:ii ...,,:.':;t,.--:-:
'''''''.i.' .'''' .' '' '''. .- . .'. '--': ' ' " 1,;'•: ' .' .-:'..;',:,-•-:':- . ,-I-it:', .,..•t-. .c.-:-/-,;ki.T,,--:=4i-:!;.•:--'•:,„--,-,--0:4&.,-.;-..!...i:;- ..--.;--:; ',...-.-„,--..... .-• ,. .,_, , „•,,,„,• ' :.'- si ro ye d -le,„;•„..-_,,,,:k,„.•''',;. ...- ;,., ,lorr.---$4.4.',.-14,,..,--,."--t*,),: -..;,-,iAr-,',.-!,..:-:::-..4,...--',-.-J,c-'-'''•'''.'---' being de
4--';','-'-'-'-'" l Basin after
'''.,5,,±-0-N•Filt..-;c'....."•;$4"..4.''ri"Z-,"-::"--,-',1"..i.-` ..,','-. '. • ' l d Control
oo
habitat
at Upland F Coastal Sage Scrubby bulldozers, June 23, 2020
Flood Control Capacity
Since approximately 20011 have visited the proposed development site(a flood control basin)about 3-4 times a year,visiting an elderly relative who lived at the nearby Red Hill Country Club. I have also seen high rainfall events such as Feb. 14, 2019, when the flood control basin was able to store stormwater runoff as it was designed, to protect neighboring suburban homes from being flooded. See attached photos.
The proposed development would fill about half of the existingflood control basin, so my question is: will the remaining half to the east be expected to collect all of the stormwater runoff during high rainfall events? The hypothetical Flood Routing Analysis in the appendix is unclear to me on this issue. My Feb. 14, 2019 photos show the basin filling between 3-4 feet of stormwater at the west end of the proposed project. This storm generated approximately 2.1 inches of rain measured at the nearby Ontario Airport, according the U.S.
Weather Service. A more severe or prolonged storm,or a much smaller basin would presumably fill the basin even higher.
. .-
, . - 1.1..,,„, - . , •
, .--)e , -. .
,
0,
)4 1
I. int_
, .
2,
-
- . ..-••-
, ,`,,-- -"
_
s% -'-' '-
: • 1. --- ------- =------ - - -.--- _ - ; ,4,...
- ------'-'-:<.?"--- ' ::;-:--- ;t:
.„,..0
-
-- ' ... -
(4 ---=-'-,4t., ..', ''. --,-• , , __--
.It.,.. 4t,P64' -..; ,,,.-.,.; ' " ' . • '
. -. ,
- , ' • ;. , , '3- -• -'. " t.,-.
Flood Control Basin looking west Feb. 14, 2019
_
- 4
,
-
42'I a, • •
- T •
- -
;.' - -
•
" ' •
-4
Flood Control Basin looking east Feb. 14, 2019
Nature Deficit Disorder
"Some preliminary research shows that lack of time outdoors,does have negative effects on children's mental well-being"-Wikipedia. The 15th Street Flood Control Basin is the only wildland within a half a mile of thousands of nearby residents and their kids who can walk to this location. Otherwise, these residents will have to get in a car and drive several miles to get to some native habitat. I have observed many wild species of native plants, birds, reptiles,and many insects like native butterflies,bees,and dragonflies. There is very little biodiversity at city parks like the nearby Upland Memorial Park, which is full of non-native trees and lawns.
These artificial urban parks offer some recreational activities, but are biological wastelands compared to a similar sized wildland. Kids and their parents need opportunities to explore nature and learn about local plants, animals and fungi.
Wetlands
In the Specific Plan Project Initial Study report,the geotechnical report stated that there was no surface water on the proposed development.
Also, for well over a decade there have been three small wetland ponds from year-round runoff from the Upland Hills Country Club golf course on the north boundary of the proposed development, with wetland species like Willows (Salix), cattails (Typha), watercress (Nasturtium), etc., and associated breeding dragonflies, mallards and other wetland-dependent species. I did not see these noted in the geotechnical report. Approximately 80% of bird species are associated with riparian or wetland habitat.
On September 5, 2019 and October 26, 2019, I observed a four-foot-wide stream of water pouring through roughly 8 ft. diameter culverts on the west end of the proposed development. What is the source of this water? Is this what is left of the creek coming downstream from Frankish Canyon? Where will it be diverted to?
I have attached a list of species that I have observed in the Flood Control Basin, and this is in Excel format, so is not pasted into this document.
Mitigation
Because this project will remove over nine acres of Sage Scrub native habitat, I would urge that all tree, shrub, and perennial plant landscaping be composed of California native plants. Native insects and the birds and other wildlife that eat them or feed them to their young are not adapted to eating non-native plants, so the area becomes a biological desert for native animals when native habitat is replaced with nonnatives. For more on this subject I recommend that you read Bringing Nature Home: How You Can Sustain Wildlife with Native Plants, by Douglas Tallamy, or view his PowerPoint presentation at least. Here’s a link for that: YouTube Video link: Restoring Nature’s Relationships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo4ZJ-ryTaE You can find more about using native plants for landscaping at the Calscape website: https://calscape.org/
I have made every effort to substantiate my observations.
I feel that the best use for the 15th Street Flood Control Basin is to allow it to grow back as an important bit of southern coastal sage scrub rather than to develop into yet another development.
Sincerely,
Bill Rodstrom, former U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service biologist 707 498-4762
[email protected]
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 1
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 2
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 3
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 4
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 5
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 6
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 7
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 8
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 9
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 10
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 11
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 12
5/10/24 (htps://lsaassoc -my.sharepoint.com/personal/carl_winter_lsa_net/Documents/Desktop/New folder/Doc1.docx) 13
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
March 7, 2022
Mr. Joshua Winter
Associate Planner
City of Upland
460 North Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Villa Serena Specific Plan Project (Tract No. 20245)
State Clearinghouse No. 2022020150
Dear Mr. Winter:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Upland (City) for the Villa Serena Specific Plan Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The proposed Project includes a general plan amendment, specific plan, site plan, rezone, and land division on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 1045-121-04 and 1045- 151-35, an approximate 9.2-acre portion of the existing 15th Street flood control detention basin, located north of E. 15th Street, south of the Upland Hills Golf Course, east of Campus Avenue, and west of Grove Avenue, in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County, California. Specific details of the proposed Project include:
1. The Villa Serena Specific Plan (Tract No. 20245) for the following:
• Establish a 9.2-acre portion of the existing 15th Street flood control detention basin for a gated residential community consisting of 65 single- family detached residential units at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre; • Designate a portion of the 9.2-acre residential community as Open Space; • Modify and relocate existing basin infrastructure in the 9.2-acre portion of flood control detention basin to accommodate the residential site.
2. Zone Change to the City of Upland Zoning Map to correspond to the proposed changes on the Land Use Map, as noted above. The zoning classification for the proposed 9.2 acres of residential development is Single-Family Residential, at a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.
CDFW recommends that the forthcoming DEIR address the following:
Assessment of Biological Resources
Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts and that special
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region. To enable CDFW staff to adequately review and comment on the project, the DEIR should include a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the Project footprint, with particular emphasis on identifying rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species and their associated habitats.
The CDFW recommends that the DEIR specifically include:
1. An assessment of the various habitat types located within the project footprint, and a map that identifies the location of each habitat type. CDFW recommends that floristic, alliance- and/or association based mapping and assessment be completed following The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Adjoining habitat areas should also be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions.
2. A general biological inventory of the fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species that are present or have the potential to be present within each habitat type onsite and within adjacent areas that could be affected by the project. CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 322-2493 or [email protected] to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code, in the vicinity of the proposed Project.
Please note that CDFW’s CNDDB is not exhaustive in terms of the data it houses, nor is it an absence database. CDFW recommends that it be used as a starting point in gathering information about the potential presence of species within the general area of the project site.
3. A complete, recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident spec ies. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where necessary.
Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
The Project site has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for burrowing owl. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513.
Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”
CDFW recommends that the City of Upland follow the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012); available for download from CDFW’s website:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/survey-protocols . The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, specifies three steps for project impact evaluations:
a. A habitat assessment;
b. Surveys; and
c. An impact assessment
As stated in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether a project will result in impacts to burrowing owls, and the information gained from the steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Habitat assessments are conducted to evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl. Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project.
4. A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants) .
5. Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region (CEQA Guidelines § 15125[c]).
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
6. A full accounting of all open space and mitigation/conservation lands within and adjacent to the Project.
Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
The DEIR should provide a thorough discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources as a result of the Project. To ensure that Project impacts to biological resources are fully analyzed, the following information should be included in the DEIR:
1. A discussion of potential impacts from lighting, noise, human activity (e.g., recreation), defensible space, and wildlife-human interactions created by zoning of development projects or other project activities adjacent to natural areas, exotic and/or invasive species, and drainage. The latter subject should address Project - related changes on drainage patterns and water quality within, upstream, and downstream of the Project site, including: volume, velocity, and frequency of existing and post-Project surface flows; polluted runoff; soil erosion and/or sedimentation in streams and water bodies; and post-Project fate of runoff from the Project site.
With respect to defensible space: please ensure that the DEIR fully describes and identifies the location, acreage, and composition of defensible space within the proposed Project footprint. Please ensure that any graphics and descriptions of defensible space associated with this project comply with San Bernardino County Fire Department regulations/requirements. The City of Upland, through their planning processes, should be ensuring that defensible space is provided and accounted for within proposed development areas, and not transferred to adjacent open space or conservations lands.
2. A discussion of potential indirect Project impacts on biological resources, including resources in areas adjacent to the project footprint, such as nearby public lands (e.g.
National Forests, State Parks, etc.), open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, wildlife corridors, and any designated and/or proposed reserve or mitigation lands (e.g., preserved lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other conserved lands).
3. An evaluation of impacts to adjacent open space lands from both the construction of the Project and any long-term operational and maintenance needs.
4. A cumulative effects analysis developed as described under CEQA Guidelines section 15130. Please include all potential direct and indirect Project related impacts to riparian areas, wetlands, vernal pools, alluvial fan habitats, wildlife corridors or wildlife movement areas, aquatic habitats, sensitive species and other sensitive
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
habitats, open lands, open space, and adjacent natural habitats in the cumulative effects analysis. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats.
Alternatives Analysis
CDFW recommends the DEIR describe and analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project that are potentially feasible, would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project,” and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project’s significant effects (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). The alternatives analysis should also evaluate a “no project” alternative (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[e]).
Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts to Biological Resources The DEIR should identify mitigation measures and alternatives that are appropriate and adequate to avoid or minimize potential impacts, to the extent feasible. The City of Upland should assess all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the Project and its long -term operation and maintenance. When proposing measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, CDFW recommends consideration of the following:
1. Fully Protected Species: Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Project activities described in the DEIR should be designed to completely avoid any fully protected species that have the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. CDFW also recommends that the DEIR fully analyze potential adverse impacts to fully protected species due to habitat modification, loss of foraging habitat, and/or interruption of migratory and breeding behaviors. CDFW recommends that the Lead Agency include in the analysis how appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will reduce indirect impacts to fully protected species.
2. Sensitive Plant Communities: CDFW considers sensitive plant communities to be imperiled habitats having both local and regional significance. Plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4 should be considered sensitive and declining at the local and regional level. These ranks can be obtained by querying the CNDDB and are included in The Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). The DEIR should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect sensitive plant communities from project-related direct and indirect impacts.
3. California Species of Special Concern (CSSC): CSSC status applies to animals generally not listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or the CESA, but which nonetheless are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist.
CSSCs should be considered during the environmental review process. CSSC that have the potential or have been documented to occur within o r adjacent to the project area, including, but not limited to: burrowing owl, , yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens).
4. Mitigation: CDFW considers adverse project-related impacts to sensitive species and habitats to be significant to both local and regional ecosystems, and the DEIR should include mitigation measures for adverse project -related impacts to these resources. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, onsite habitat restoration and/or enhancement, and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available onsite, o ffsite land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail.
The DEIR should include measures to perpetually protect the targeted habitat values within mitigation areas from direct and indirect adverse impacts in ord er to meet mitigation objectives to offset project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of biological values. Specific issues that should be addressed include restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, long-term monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, increased human intrusion, etc.
If sensitive species and/or their habitat may be impacted from the Project, CDFW recommends the inclusion of specific mitigation in the DEIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(8) states that formulation of feasible mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future date. The Court of Appeal in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645 struck down mitigation measures which required formulating management plans developed in consultation with State and Federal wildlife agencies after Project approval. Courts have also repeatedly not supported conclusions that impacts are mitigable when essential studies, and therefore impact assessments, are incomplete (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d. 296; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359; Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777).
CDFW recommends that the DEIR specify mitigation that is roughly proportional to the level of impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). The mitigation should provide long - term conservation value for the suite of species and habitat being impacted by the Project. Furthermore, in order for mitigation measures to be effective, they need to be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions.
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
5. Habitat Revegetation/Restoration Plans: Plans for restoration and revegetation should be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant restoration techniques. Plans should identify the assumptions used to develop the proposed restoration strategy. Each plan should include, at a minimum:
(a) the location of restoration sites and assessment of appropriate reference sites; (b) the plant species to be used, sources of local propagules, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation are a; (d) a local seed and cuttings and planting schedule; (e) a description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g) specific success criteria; (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity. Monitoring of restoration areas should extend across a sufficient time fram e to ensure that the new habitat is established, self-sustaining, and capable of surviving drought.
CDFW recommends that local onsite propagules from the Project area and nearby vicinity be collected and used for restoration purposes. Onsite seed collection should be initiated in the near future in order to accumulate sufficient propagule material for subsequent use in future years. Onsite vegetation mapping at the alliance and/or association level should be used to develop appropriate restoration goals a nd local plant palettes. Reference areas should be identified to help guide restoration efforts.
Specific restoration plans should be developed for various project components as appropriate.
6. Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Please note that it is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: Fish and Game Code section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
CDFW recommends that the DEIR include the results of avian surveys, as well as specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to nesting birds do not occur. Project-specific avoidance and minimization measures may include, but not be limited to: project phasing and timing, monitoring of project-
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where appropriate. The DEIR should also include specific avoidance and minimization measures that will be implemented should a nest be located within the project site. If pre-construction surveys are proposed in the DEIR, the CDFW recommends that they be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted sooner.
7. Moving out of Harm’s Way: To avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends that the lead agency condition the DEIR to require that a CDFW -approved qualified biologist be retained to be onsite prior to and during all ground- and habitat-disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species or other wildlife of low or limited mobility that would otherwise be injured or killed from project -related activities. Movement of wildlife out of harm’s way should be limited to only those individuals that would otherwise by injured or killed, and individuals should be moved only as far a necessary to ensure their safety (i.e., CDFW does not recommend relocation to other areas). Furthermore, it should be noted that the temporary relocation of onsite wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss.
8. Translocation of Species: CDFW generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species as studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
California Endangered Species Act
CDFW is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of fish and wildlife resources including threatened, endangered, and/or candidate plant and animal species, pursuant to CESA. CDFW recommends that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” (California Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines “take” as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) of State-listed CESA species, either through construction or over the life of the project. CESA ITPs are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed CESA species and their habitats.
CDFW encourages early consultation, as significant modification to the proposed Project and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may be necessary to obtain a CESA ITP. The California Fish and Game Code requires that CDFW comply with CEQA for issuance of a CESA ITP. CDFW therefore recommends that the DEIR addresses all Project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation moni toring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of CESA.
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
Based on review of CNDDB, and/or knowledge of the project site/vicinity/general area, CDFW is aware that the following CESA-listed species have the potential to occur onsite/have previously been reported onsite: Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).
Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
The Project applicant has notified CDFW per Fish and Game Code section 1602. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water.
Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the proposed Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW may suggest ways to modify your Project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub.
Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of the LSA Agreement, the DEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water- efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Local water agencies/districts, and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens (for example the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District in Riverside). Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website: http://saveourwater.com/what-you-can- do/tips/landscaping/
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Reso urces Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Information can be submitted online or via completion of the CNDDB field survey form at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals .
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.).
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP of a DEIR for the Villa Serena Specific Plan Project (SCH No. 2022020150) and recommends that the City of Upland address the CDFW’s comments and concerns in the forthcoming DEIR. If you should have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in this letter, please contact Kim Freeburn, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor, at (909) 544-1344 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Wilson
Environmental Program Manager
ec: Kim Freeburn, Senior Environmental Scientist, Supervisor Inland Deserts Region
[email protected]
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
March 7, 2022
HCPB CEQA Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Planning Branch
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
REFERENCES
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. http://vegetation.cnps.org/
From:Beanz Galvez
To:Joshua Winter; Janice Elliott
Subject:Re: Villa Sirena NOP
Date:Wednesday, March 9, 2022 5:42:41 PM
Attachments:Capture+_2021-06-23-22-54-32.png
Capture+_2021-05-14-14-22-56.png
Capture+_2021-06-23-22-54-10.png
Capture+_2021-06-28-16-10-43.png
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
Sorry again, reviewing my email I noticed a few more pictures didn't go thru. See how beautiful the basin was.
Jo Beanz
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022, 5:35 PM Shari Wasson wrote:
Great comments, Jo!
Sent from Outlook
From: Beanz Galvez
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Janice Elliott
Subject: Villa Sirena NOP
Dear Joshua Winter, ([email protected]) March 8, 2022
My name is Jo Beanz. I'm a long-time resident of Upland and part of Friends of Upland Wetlands (FUW). I am against the Villa Serena project and high density housing being constructed in the 15th Street Flood Control Basin for many reasons including the significant impacts to aesthetics, increased noise, reduced groundwater recharge, biological, and endangerment of the wildlife and flora and fauna in the area.
I am providing photos from 5 years ago versus the last year in May, 2021 to document the wetlands and conditions at the 15th Street Flood Control Basin before and after “weed abatement” conducted by The Colonies Partners, L.P. If you look at the picture from 5 years ago you can see we had water, we had our flowers, we had our wildlife. And if you look at what they did the last past year (under the pretense of weed abatement), they bulldozed down to bare soil and applied herbicide, which left no vegetation. Were the appropriate agencies notified of these activities? Please give the 15th St Flood
Control Basin a chance to grow back up and see what it could become again before you allow “weed abatement” with a bulldozer and herbicide again or conduct the biological surveys for the environmental impact report required to allow development of homes.
Regarding aesthetics, my family bought their house because of the view, it was secluded, and isolated. Our family home is paid for. We consider it an investment. The Villa Serena project will block the current residents' beautiful views of the flood basin and the mountains. Now they're going to take that all away and build cookie cutter houses with no backyards, with the supposed tradeoff that they are putting in a play area and making it a gated community. All these factors and more will contribute to dropping our home values.
It's not fair that we have our house paid for and now we're going to lose value to our homes. I hope you look at this with an open mind, as if it was your own home, your own investment, and your own family life.
I have attached a picture of the 15th Street Flood Control Basin when there was water, when there was flora and fauna. I have also attached a picture of what they did in May 2021 (and the previous year May 2020.) I've also attached a picture of a duckling family, with their mother duck walking into the Basin. After the weed abatement by bulldozers, the ducks’ home was destroyed. The next day we found the ducks dead on a city street (see the attached picture).
Please do what's right for Upland. Address and mitigate the significant impacts to aesthetics, increased noise, reduced groundwater recharge, biological, and endangerment of the wildlife and flora and fauna in the area.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely
Jo Beanz
President
Friends of Upland Wetlands
Resized_Resized_20201112_140108.jpg
Capture+_2021-06-23-22-54-10.png
Capture+_2021-06-23-22-54-32.png
20210520_103101.jpg
Andrew Salas, Chairman Nadine Salas, Vice-Chairman Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders
PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians.org [email protected]
GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
Historically known as The Gabrielino Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin
February 17, 2022
Project Name: Villa Serena Specific Plan, City of Upland
Thank you for your letter regarding the project above. This is to concur that we are in agreement with the Specific Plan Amendment. However, our Tribal government would like to request consultation for any and all future projects when ground disturbance will be occurring within this location.
Sincerely,
Andrew Salas, Chairman
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
1(844)390-0787
From:Tish anderson
To:Rudy Gmail. Zuniga
Cc:Joshua Winter; Janice Elliott
Subject:Villa Serena
Date:Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:44:39 AM
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links. ________________________________
Hello Vice Mayor Zuniga,
I hope that all is well with you and know that you continue to work hard for representing the stakeholders of Upland.
As you know there has been a renewed effort in generating a “new” environmental impact report of the vacant property on 15th Street on behalf of the City of Upland.
With the current standing of the court decision of a negative declaration already in place whereas the residences of this neighborhood have standing and are against any development, I am voicing my opposition to any further action of new EIR’s being performed.
The impact to the location’s wildlife, municipal departments, and traffic will all create undesirable living conditions as well as affect property values.
Furthermore additional environmental impact reports are expensive and time consuming for the City. Does the City have extra funds to throw at continued dedicated billable staff hours and litigation? Last time I checked the budget there were no funds allocated or available for reports or further litigation. Maybe you can tell me why the City of Upland is continuing to fight the residences and siding with a Developer on the Villa Serena Project? Sincerely,
Leticia Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Joshua Winter: March 9, 2022
My name is Lois Sicking Dieter. I am a long-time resident of Upland. I am submitting the following comments regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Villa Serena Specific Plan in the 15th Street Flood Control Basin.
Despite being opposed to the proposed Villa Serena project, I appreciate the opportunity to review the EIR when made public. The residents’ expressed expectation is that the environmental report will be a legally accurate EIR at a level of specificity required for this complex project. My opposition to this project is based on the potential for significant environmental impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetics/visual, biological resources/wetlands/riparian, flood control detention basin capacity and flood control, water supply, groundwater, noise, transportation, drainage/absorption, and toxic/hazardous wastes from the adjacent landfill and stormwater pollution runoff.
In addition to the listed Air Resources Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Housing and Community Development, Native American Heritage Commission, and Santa Anna Regional Water Quality Control Board, other responsible trustee agencies include the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Army Corp of Engineers, and the California State Division of Safety of Dams. Were all of these agencies informed of this NOP? If not, why not?
Previous “weed abatement” of the 15th Street Flood Control Basin in May, 2020 and May, 2021 consisted of removal of vegetation down to bare mineral soil by use of a bulldozer and followed by application of a herbicide as seen by local residents and reported to the CDFW. The City of Upland stated this was “weed abatement.” However, previous to May of 2020, weed abatement in the basin did not include any heavy equipment such as a bulldozer and used handheld equipment and trimmers.
Furthermore, weed abatement to bare mineral soil was not done and only began in May of 2020. We ask the City of Upland and applicant to conduct the full scope of surveys necessary to support the EIR prior to allowing another weed abatement.
Furthermore, after these surveys are completed, to only allow use of handheld equipment and trimmers and not allow use of any heavy equipment in the basin.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this NOP.
Lois Sicking Dieter
[email protected]
(909) 985-1397
From:NATASHA WALTON
To:Joshua Winter
Cc:Janice Elliott
Subject:Fwd: N Walton Comments on Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Villa Serena Specific Plan EIR Date:Wednesday, March 9, 2022 7:54:52 PM
Attachments:National Wetlands Inventory - Upland 15th St Basin - Wetlands Circled.jpg WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
Dear Mr. Winter:
Please accept my email below if you did not already receive it via your [email protected] email address. I had apparently used an incorrect email address for you in my previous email.
Thank You,
Natasha Walton
Get Outlook for iOS
From: NATASHA WALTON
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 6:22 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: N Walton Comments on Notice of Preparation (NOP) for Villa Serena Specific Plan EIR
Dear Mr. Winter:
I was having trouble sending this email right before 6PM today, please accept my following comments and attachment.
I am an 18-year Upland resident and wildlife biologist; I am very disappointed to learn that once again the City of Upland is planning on developing one of Upland’s last remaining biological treasures which can be found in the 15th St flood control basin. Although I am glad to see that the Villa Serena Project Specific Plan will now be evaluated via an environmental impact report (EIR), vs. a less comprehensive initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND), this Villa Serena project would still have significant negative effects on the invaluable biological resources, amongst other environmental resources, found at this site. The effects of this project on the biological resources should be fully disclosed to the public before the Upland City Council and Planning Commission should even consider allowing such a project. To help ensure full disclosure of the project’s effect on the biological resources at and near the 15th St. flood basin, I request the following items:
1. Please fulfill Shari Wasson’s requests as explained in her 3/9/2022 email to Mr. Winters regarding the Villa Serena NOP. Her requests include the following: taking into consideration the state of and species occupying the west side of the basin prior to bulldozing in May of
2020 and 2021; prohibiting further bulldozing on any portion of the basin; including the east side of the basin in the biological assessment; addressing the loss of wetlands in the basin; conducting surveys using agency-approved protocols for special-status species, such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and burrowing owl; and conducting surveys throughout the year during different times of the day to evaluate the presence of the whole variety of species using the basin, such as frogs and bats.
2. Please carry out a delineation of jurisdictional waters (jurisdictional delineation [JD]) for the entire basin since the entire basin would be impacted by this project. A JD would determine whether or not a 401 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit, and/or 1602 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) permit needs to be obtained for the proposed project. However, many in the community are expecting the need for a streambed alteration agreement for this project since, as Ms. Wasson explained, the City of Upland had previously needed a streambed alteration agreement with CDFW for this area in 1999 with CDFW and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates the presence of wetlands in this basin (see NWI attachment) Thus, I encourage early consultation with CDFW on this issue.
3. Please include the east side of the 15th St. basin clearly in the project site maps since this eastern side of the basin would be permanently impacted by the project as well since it will be modified greatly to accommodate the loss of the basin on the western side. In fact the name of the basin should also be included in the title of this specific plan.
However, please note that no EIR can capture the true impacts that the loss of our natural areas will have on our quality of life in Upland. The sounds, smells and sights of such an area can fulfill our hearts in ways that no scientist can measure and no city can mitigate for its loss.
I have hope that the city staff, planning commission, and city council will realize that this project site must be preserved for flood control and as special place for our native wildlife and plants, and, yes, even our hearts.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Natasha Walton, MS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:Quechan Historic Preservation Officer
To:Joshua Winter
Subject:Villa Serena Specific Plan
Date:Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:55:29 AM
Attachments:image001.jpg
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
This email is to inform you that we have no comments on this project. We defer to the more local Tribes and support their decisions on the projects.
Thank you,
H. Jill McCormick, M.A.
Quechan Indian Tribe
Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Office: 760-572-2423
Cell: 928-261-0254
E-mail: [email protected]
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From:Ryan Nordness
To:Joshua Winter
Subject:EIR City of Upland NOP for the Villa Serena Specific Plan DEIR Date:Wednesday, March 9, 2022 12:32:49 PM
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
Hello Mr. Winter,
Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above referenced project. SMBMI appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on March 9th, pursuant to CEQA (as amended, 2015) and CA PRC 21080.3.1. 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. As a result, SMBMI requests that the following language be made a part of the project/permit/plan conditions:
CUL MMs
In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in theimmediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualifiedarchaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work onthe other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during thisassessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural ResourcesDepartment (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding any pre-contactand/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/herinitial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards tosignificance and treatment.
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (asamended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shalldevelop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI forreview and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainderof the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated withthe project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall ceaseand the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
TCR MMs
The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall becontacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resourcesdiscovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the natureof the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should thefind be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources
Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination withSMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for amonitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMIelect to place a monitor on-site.
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records,site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and LeadAgency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith,consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project.
Note: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no objection if the agency, developer, and/or archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes in addition to SMBMI and if the Lead Agency wishes to revise the conditions to recognize additional tribes.
Please provide the final copy of the project/permit/plan conditions so that SMBMI may review the included language. This communication concludes SMBMI’s input on this project, at this time, and no additional consultation pursuant to CEQA is required unless there is an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during project implementation. If you should have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience, as I will be your Point of Contact (POC) for SMBMI with respect to this project.
Respectfully,
Ryan Nordness
Ryan Nordness
Cultural Resource Analyst
[email protected]
O:(909) 864-8933 Ext 50-2022
M:(909) 838-4053
26569 Community Center Dr Highland, California 92346
March 8 2022 File: 10(ENV)-4.01
CITY OF UPLAND
Attn: Joshua Winter
Development Services Department,
Planning Division
460 North Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
[email protected]
Transmitted Via Email
RE: CEQA – NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN
Dear Mr. Winter:
Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on February 23, 2022 and pursuant to our review, we have the following comments:
Flood Control Planning & Water Resources Division (Michael Fam, Chief, 909-387-8120):
1. We are aware there may be storm drains in and around the site that may be affected by the proposed Project. When planning for or altering existing or future storm drains, be advised that the Proposed Project is subject to both the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) #7, dated July 1966, and the Upland Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) dated, November 1994. These are to be used as a guideline for drainage in the area and are available in the County's Flood Control District Offices. Any revision to the plans drainage should be reviewed and approved by the City. Should construction of new, or alterations to existing storm drains be necessary as part of the Proposed Project, their impacts and any required mitigation should be discussed within the Draft EIR before the document is adopted by the Lead Agency.
2. The District's recommendations are most often made for site specific conditions. Therefore, the recommendations made here are general in nature until such time as more detailed plans become available.
3. According to the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel 06071C8607H, dated August 28, 2008, the Project lies within Zone X (outside the 500-yr. floodplain). Impacts associated with the occurrence of the project within the mentioned floodplain and mitigation, should be discussed within the environmental documents prior to adoption or certification.
4. The District owns the existing West Cucamonga By-Pass Channel within the scope of the Project.
Therefore, other on-site, or off-site improvements may be required, which cannot be determined from Department of Public Works
• Flood Control • Special Districts
• Operations • Surveyor
• Solid Waste Management • Transportation
Main Office - 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 | Phone: 909.387.7910 Fax: 909.387.7911
Brendon Biggs, M.S., P.E.
Director
Trevor Leja
Assistant Director
Noel Castillo, P.E.
Assistant Director
City of Highland
March 8, 2022
5. the tentative plans at this time, and would have to be reviewed after more complete improvement plans and drainage analysis have been submitted to the District.
6. One of the benefits of the CSDP/MPD is to identify the alignment of future and flood control facilities.
It is hoped that the City will continue to use this document to protect the alignment of future facilities.
7. We recommend that the November 1994, Upland MPD for the City of Upland, prepared by Williamson & Schmid - Consulting Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, be utilized in the design of drainage facilities.
Permits/Operations Support Division (Sameh Basta, Chief, 909-387-7995):
1. The project site is located outside of the District’s Right-of-way. Based on the parcel number provided no permit is anticipated to be required at this time. However, any encroachment on the District’s right- of -way or facilities, including but not limited to access, fencing and grading, utility crossings, landscaping, new and/or alteration to drainage connections will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction. The necessity for permits, and any impacts associated with them, should be addressed in the Draft EIR prior to adoption and certification. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the FCD Permit Section at (909) 387-1863
We respectfully request to be included on the circulation list for all project notices, public reviews, or public hearings. In closing, I would like to thank you again for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Perry
Supervising Planner
Environmental Management
MP:AG:mm
March 17, 2022
Mr. Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland Development Services Department, Planning Division 460 North Euclid Avenue
Upland, California 91786
Phone: (909) 931-4130
E-mail: [email protected]
RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villa Serena Specific Plan [SCAG NO. IGR10574]
Dear Mr. Winter,
Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villa Serena Specific Plan (“proposed project”) to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is responsible for providing informational resources to regionally significant plans, projects, and programs per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to facilitate the consistency of these projects with SCAG’s adopted regional plans, to be determined by the lead agencies.1
Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, SCAG is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law and is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SCAG’s feedback is intended to assist local jurisdictions and project proponents to implement projects that have the potential to contribute to attainment of Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals and align with RTP/SCS policies. Finally, SCAG is also the authorized regional agency for Intergovernmental Review (IGR) of programs proposed for Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372.
SCAG staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villa Serena Specific Plan in San Bernardino County. The proposed project includes the establishment of a residential specific plan for the development of a gated residential community with 65 single-family detached residential units and on-site active and passive recreational amenities on a 9.2-acre site.
When available, please email environmental documentation to [email protected] providing, at a minimum, the full public comment period for review.
If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact the Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Program, attn.: Anita Au, Senior Regional Planner, at (213) 236-1874 or [email protected]. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Frank Wen, Ph.D.
Manager, Planning Strategy Department
1 Lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with the 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) for the purpose of determining consistency for CEQA.
March 17, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10574
Mr. Winter Page 2
COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
VILLA SERENA SPECIFIC PLAN [SCAG NO. IGR10574]
CONSISTENCY WITH CONNECT SOCAL
SCAG provides informational resources to facilitate the consistency of the proposed project with the adopted 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal). For the purpose of determining consistency with CEQA, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with Connect SoCal.
CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
The SCAG Regional Council fully adopted Connect SoCal in September 2020. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS, builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The long-range visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in Connect SoCal may be pertinent to the proposed project.
These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project. Among the relevant goals of Connect SoCal are the following:
SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods Goal #3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Goal #4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Goal #6: Support healthy and equitable communities
Goal #7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network
Goal #8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel Goal #9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options
Goal #10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats
For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side-by-side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non-consistency or non-applicability of the goals and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows:
March 17, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10574
Mr. Winter Page 3
SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal Analysis
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
etc. etc.
Connect SoCal Strategies
To achieve the goals of Connect SoCal, a wide range of land use and transportation strategies are included in the accompanying twenty (20) technical reports. Of particular note are multiple strategies included in Chapter 3 of Connect SoCal intended to support implementation of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) framed within the context of focusing growth near destinations and mobility options; promoting diverse housing choices; leveraging technology innovations; supporting implementation of sustainability policies; and promoting a Green Region. To view Connect SoCal and the accompanying technical reports, please visit the Connect SoCal webpage.
Connect SoCal builds upon the progress from previous RTP/SCS cycles and continues to focus on integrated, coordinated, and balanced planning for land use and transportation that helps the SCAG region strive towards a more sustainable region, while meeting statutory requirements pertinent to RTP/SCSs. These strategies within the regional context are provided as guidance for lead agencies such as local jurisdictions when the proposed project is under consideration.
Connect SoCal also identifies natural lands resources and outlines strategies to protect and enhance biodiversity, habitat, wildlife corridors and agricultural areas in the SCAG region. For further information on these strategies, please review the 2020 Connect SoCal Natural and Farm & Farm Lands Conservation Technical Report. The proposed project appears to be located in or near a Freshwater Pond and/or Freshwater Emergent Wetland according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, which is viewable at https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ .
DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH FORECASTS
A key, formative step in projecting future population, households, and employment through 2045 for Connect SoCal was the generation of a forecast of regional and county level growth in collaboration with expert demographers and economists on Southern California. From there, jurisdictional level forecasts were ground-truthed by subregions and local agencies, which helped SCAG identify opportunities and barriers to future development. This forecast helps the region understand, in a very general sense, where we are expected to grow, and allows SCAG to focus attention on areas that are experiencing change and may have increased transportation needs. After a year-long engagement effort with all 197 jurisdictions one-on-one, 82 percent of SCAG’s 197 jurisdictions provided feedback on the forecast of future growth for Connect SoCal. SCAG also sought feedback on potential sustainable growth strategies from a broad range of stakeholder groups – including local jurisdictions, county transportation commissions, other partner agencies, industry groups, community-based organizations, and the general public. Connect SoCal utilizes a bottom- up approach in that total projected growth for each jurisdiction reflects feedback received from jurisdiction staff, including city managers, community development/planning directors, and local staff. Growth at the neighborhood level (i.e., transportation analysis zone (TAZ) reflects entitled projects and adheres to current general and specific plan maximum densities as conveyed by jurisdictions (except in cases where entitled projects and development
March 17, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10574
Mr. Winter Page 4
agreements exceed these capacities as calculated by SCAG). Neighborhood level growth projections also feature strategies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from automobiles and light trucks to achieve Southern California’s GHG reduction target, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in accordance with state planning law. Connect SoCal’s Forecasted Development Pattern is utilized for long range modeling purposes and does not supersede actions taken by elected bodies on future development, including entitlements and development agreements. SCAG does not have the authority to implement the plan -- neither through decisions about what type of development is built where, nor what transportation projects are ultimately built, as Connect SoCal is adopted at the jurisdictional level. Achieving a sustained regional outcome depends upon informed and intentional local action. To access jurisdictional level growth estimates and forecasts for years 2016 and 2045, please refer to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. The growth forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below.
Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Adopted City of Upland Forecasts Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Population 19,517,731 20,821,171 21,443,006 22,503,899 78,531 84,208 87,158 92,963 Households 6,333,458 6,902,821 7,170,110 7,633,451 27,016 29,336 30,496 32,817 Employment 8,695,427 9,303,627 9,566,384 10,048,822 36,769 38,960 40,056 42,247
MITIGATION MEASURES
SCAG staff recommends that you review the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for Connect SoCal for guidance, as appropriate. SCAG’s Regional Council certified the PEIR and adopted the associated Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (FOF/SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on May 7, 2020 and also adopted a PEIR Addendum and amended the MMRP on September 3, 2020 (please see the PEIR webpage and scroll to the bottom of the page for the PEIR Addendum). The PEIR includes a list of project-level performance standards-based mitigation measures that may be considered for adoption and implementation by lead, responsible, or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and feasible. Project-level mitigation measures are within responsibility, authority, and/or jurisdiction of project-implementing agency or other public agency serving as lead agency under CEQA in subsequent project- and site- specific design, CEQA review, and decision-making processes, to meet the performance standards for each of the CEQA resource categories.
March 9, 2022
Dear Joshua Winter:
My name is Shari Wasson, I am a long-time resident of Upland. I have been naturalist and a birder for over 30 years, having taken courses at the college level in California Natural History (including bird identification) and Field Botany. I am submitting the following comments regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Villa Serena Specific Plan.
Although I am against the development of the 15th Street flood basin, I am pleased that the city is preparing an EIR for this project instead of a less comprehensive analysis like that of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND ). A thorough and accurate EIR should help ensure that the Upland community has a complete understanding of how their environment would be significantly affected by this project if it is approved by the city council.
I and other residents remain greatly concerned about the impacts this project will have on the habitat and the biological resources within the proposed housing development site and the adjacent 11.1 acres. We are also concerned about the damage that has been done to the habitat in the basin over the last 2 years, and the potential for this destruction to result in an inaccurate biological assessment of the site.
Previous bulldozing and degradation of habitat on west side:
In May 2020, during the nesting bird season, the mature native coastal sage scrub habitat on the west side of the basin, where the housing development has been proposed, was bulldozed under the label of ‘weed abatement.’ This destruction was ‘wholesale’ in that nearly all plants, including small trees and numerous stands of prickly pear cactus were destroyed or severely damaged. In May of 2021, this side of the basin was again bulldozed under the auspices of ‘weed abatement.’ According to several residents living in proximity of the basin, in previous years the floor of the basin would occasionally be cleared of plants, and weed-wh acking for fire danger at the street margin would occur each Spring. No one I spoke to could recall a time when the basin slopes had been cleared of mature plants through bulldozing.
Due to the bulldozing, the habitat on the west side of the basin has been severely damaged and does not presently reflect the quality and vitality of the habitat prior to these destructive activities.
Including the state of the habitat on the west side prior to bulldozing:
A fair a comprehensive biological assessment of the site needs to take into consideration the state of the west side of basin prior to bulldozing activities.
Species that are regenerating after the bulldozing should be assessed, along with the small areas of habitat on this side that remain intact. These will help provide a sense of the types of species on the site, if not the density, or the vitality.
In addition, as the east side of the basin and the west side of the basin are contiguous, we may presume that they shared some common plant and animal species. Thus, the intact habitat and species found on the east side of the basin may be considered reflective of the habitat and species that had been on the west side. An assessment of the east side should be used to help inform the assessment of the west side.
In order to help demonstrate the density and vitality of the habitat prior to bulldozing, I am attaching a word document titled ‘NOP Attachment - Basin and Bulldozing’ that contains some photos of the west side of the basin before, during, and after bulldozing. In some of the photos, I have also labeled some of coastal sage scrub plant species visible in the foreground of the images.
I am also attaching a plant species list (NOP Attachment – Plant List April 2020) and a bird species list (NOP Attachment – Bird List April 2020) compiled from surveys conducted in the basin on April 10, 11, 12, 2020, prior the first bulldozing on May 14 and 15, 2020. These lists had previously been submitted for public comment to the City Council at the public hearing on April 13, 2020 regarding the Villa Serena Development.
Prohibition of further bulldozing of habitat:
In order to promote as fair and accurate biological assessment as possible for the EIR, there must be protections in place that will prevent further destruction and degradation of the habitat throughout the basin. Therefore, I request that the City prohibit further bulldozing of any and all parts of the basin, both west and east.
Including the east side of basin in biological assessment:
It is important to include the east side of the b asin in the biological analysis in order to more accurately develop an analysis of the west side; however, it also needs a thorough assessment since the project proposes modifications to this area. Assessment of this area appears to have been largely overlooked in the original IS/MND. The original IS/MND for this project indicated that modifications to the east side would include grading a large portion of the basin to create a new footprint at its western end , creating new slopes and new berms, etc. This activity w ould surely result in the damage and destruction of significant portions of habitat on the east side of the basin.
This is habitat that, like the west side, includes coastal sage scrub and wetland areas. The EIR needs to address the need for mitigation for both the wetland and the coastal sage scrub habitats.
As the project entails significant modifications to the east 11.1 acres of the flood basin, with this area remaining an active flood basin, perhaps the project should more accurately be titled The Villa Serena and 15 th Street Flood Basin Specific Plan. The EIR should comprehensively address the modifications to this side of the basin including detailed plans covering depths, slopes, berm height changes, capacity, flood risks, access roads, planned habitat restoration, etc. Furthermore, all areas within the 11.1 acres that will be affected by the modifications should be included in the project footprint map via shading.
In addition, the following trustee agencies should be consulted regarding the proposed modifications to the basin: California State Division of Safety of Dams, and The San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
Wetland/riparian project issue:
In the Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal, the category of Wetland/Riparian is not checked in the section titled ‘Project Issues Discussed in Document.’ However, the EIR should address the issue of Wetland/Riparian habitat, as there are several wetland areas spanning the flood basin, from the west side (proposed housing development site) to the east side (proposed modified basin). Some of the plant species supported by these wetlands include: cattails (Typha sp.), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), water smartweed (Persicaria hydropiperoides), and seep monkey flower (Erythranthe guttata, formerly
classified as Mimulus guttata).
The proposed site of the housing development contains wetland mitigation areas for previously existing wetlands that were part of a 1999 streambed alteration agreement between the City and CDFW. I am attaching a copy of the 1999 Streambed Alteration Agreement and the 2006 Staff Report on the state of wetlands.
The 2006 Staff Report on the state of the wetlands contains an aerial photo of the basin with wetlands stations numbered 1 – 6. Wetlands at stations 4, 5, and 6 are on the west side of the basin, within the footprint of the proposed housing development, and would be destroyed if the project is approved.
The east side wetlands are also subject to destruction by the project due to the modifications proposed on that side. The EIR needs to address mitigation for these wetlands.
I am attaching a word document titled ‘NOP Attachment -Wetland s’ containing screen shots which compare the labeled aerial photo of the wetlands with an aerial photo of the project site provided in the NOP.
Comparing these two photos clarifies the location of wetlands 4, 5, and 6 relative to the housing development site. This word document also contains photos of the some of the wetlands as they appeared on April 9, 2020, prior to the bulldozing, and I have labeled some of wetland plant species visible in one of the images.
Biologist’s Memo:
I am attaching a memorandum (Memo Upland Hills TEsurveys 3Nov2a) written by Dan Cooper, a biologist and bird expert, which further corroborates the presence of the wetlands within the basin. Mr. Cooper’s visit took place on July 24, 2020, after the first bulldozing of the west side of the basin. Mr. Cooper’s memo notes the presence of several of the wetland plant species mentioned in the section above, and further contains information about the coastal sage scrub habitat, the state of regeneration of the habitat on the west side after the first bulldozing, a list of bird species observed on the site at the time of his visit, and recommendations regarding surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (threatened), least Bell’s vireo (endangered), and burrowing owl (species of special concern). It is important that protocol surveys for these species be conducted.
Mr. Cooper’s memo also notes that at the time of his visit, several of the bulldozed plants were “vigorously re-sprouting.” This further supports the need to factor in the state of the habitat in the basin prior to bulldozing, as it suggests that without repeated and regular destruction , the habitat is capable of reflecting its original intact state.
Need for multiple site visits at different times of year and times of day:
The basin supports a host of native plant, animal and bird species, several of which are associated with wetland habitats. A comprehensive assessment and inventory of all species occurring in the basin needs to be conducted so that the public has as clear an understanding as possible of the resources that will be affected and that need to be mitigated for should the project be approved. To this end, the biological assessment should involve multiple visits to the site, at differing times of the year, and times of day. Evening visits should be included to assess the presence of nocturnal species such as bats, rodents, amphibians, and insects. Palm trees such as are found on the site, are known to provide roosts for the western yellow bat, though the presence of water and open space would attract various bat species in their hunt nocturnal insects. In addition, I and other neighbors can certainly attest to the presence in the basin of the Baja California tree frog which is heard with seasonal regularity in the evenings, but which may go unnoticed in the day.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Shari Wasson
7 Attachments:
CDFW 1999 Streambed Alteration Agreement w/ City of Upland Upland's 2006 Wetlands Staff Report (related to 1999 Streambed Alteration Agreement)
NOP Attachment – Bird List April 2020
NOP Attachment – Plant List April 2020
Memo Upland Hills TEsurveys 3Nov2a
NOP Attachment - Basin and Bulldozing
NOP Attachment -Wetlands
1/4
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Bird List April 2020
List of Birds (April 10, 11, 12, 2020): 15th Street Flood Control Basin Upland, San Bernardino Co., California, US This list is the result of surveys conducted by participating parties over April 10, 11, 12, 2020. The number at the end of a given species name represents the largest quantity of a given species observed during this timeframe. Please note that this is a cumulative list for only 3 days, and not every species was observed on all three days. Therefore, this list does not reflect all possible avian species on the site at any given time, and it does not preclude the presence of others including such sensitive species as the burrowing owl (species of special concern), coastal California gnatcatcher (threatened), or least Bell’s vireo (endangered). In addition to the avian species below, the presence of frogs (heard chirping), various lizards, cottontail rabbits, ground squirrels, and coyotes were also observed on the site.
41 bird species.
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 5
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 6
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) 12
Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) 10
Great Egret (Ardea alba) 1
Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 1
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 1
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 3
Nuttall's Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) 1
Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis) 1
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) 1
Ash -throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) 2
Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) 3
California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica) 2
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 5
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 18
Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) 1
Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) 5
House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) 1
Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) 4
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) 2
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Bird List April 2020 House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) 3
Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus) 2
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) 4
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 22
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 1
Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) 1 Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) 2 California Towhee (Melozone crissalis) 7
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) 1
Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) 3
Orange-crowned Warbler (Leiothlypis celata) 4
Nashville Warbler (Leiothlypis ruficapilla) 2
Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 1
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) 2
Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) 2 American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) 1 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 1
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 5
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 1
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) 2
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Plant List April 2020 List of Plants:
15th Street Flood Control Basin
Upland, San Bernardino Co., California, US
This is list is the result of greatly limited surveys conducted over April 10, 11, 12, 2020. The surveys were conducted prior to bulldozing which occurred on May 14 and 15, 2020.
This is not a comprehensive list of plant species on the site. Many more species are present than were able to be identified by participating parties.
32 plant species:
• Mule-Fat: Baccharis salicifolia
• Common (Seep) Monkeyflower: Mimulus guttatus
• California Sagebrush: Artemisia californica
• Jimsonweed: Datura Stramonium
• Black Sage: Salvia mellifera
• California Buckwheat: Eriogonum fasciculatum
• Buckwheat: Erigonum s p (possible additional buckwheat species) • Deerweed: Acmispon glaber
• Hollyleaf Cherry: Prunus ilicifolia
• Scale Broom (Lepidospartum squamatum)
• California Croton: Croton californicus
• Common Fiddleneck: Amsinckia intermedia
• California Poppy: Eschscholzia californica
• Royal Penstemon: Penstemon spectabilis
• California Sun Cups: Camissoniopsis bistorta
• Wild Radish: Raphanus raphanistrum
• Watercress: Nasturtium officinale
• Yerba Santa: Eriodictyon californicum
• Tree Tobacco: Nicotiana glauca
• White Nightshade: Solanum americanum
• Coyote Melon: Cucurbita foetidissima
• California Sycamore: Platanus racemosa
• Coast Live Oak: Quercus agrifolia
• Fan Palm: Washingtonia sp.
• Brome grass: Bromus sp.
• Lupine: Lupinus sp.
• Cattail: Typha sp.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Plant List April 2020 • Thistle: Cirsium sp.
• Mustard: Brassica ssp. (more than one species)
• Prickley Pear: Opuntia sp.
• Storksbill: Erodium sp.
• Plantain: Plantago ssp. (more than one species)
1 Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.
EIN 72-1598095
Daniel S. Cooper, President
255 Satinwood Ave
Oak Park, CA 91377
(323) 397-3562
www.cooperecological.com
[email protected]
MEMO
To: Friends of the Upland Wetlands
From: Daniel S. Cooper
Date: Nov. 3, 2020
Re: Habitat assessment, California Gnatcatcher
I report on a visit to a flood-control basin along the southern edge of Upland Hills Country Club, located just north of E. 15th St. in Upland, California. My survey was conducted between 8:00 – 10:00 AM on the morning of July 24, 2020, and conditions were ideal for a survey (mid-70s clear/calm).
Site Description
This shallow flood control basin extends east-west between the country club greens and residential development (tract housing) on E. 15th St. (Figure 1). Runoff from the golf course enters through four principal drains on the north side of the basin. This basin is situated along the floodplain of Cucamonga Creek, but I did not investigate the hydrological connection between the basin and the creek.
The slopes of the basin are vegetated with coastal sage scrub/alluvial fan scrub comprised of native shrub species with scattered non-natives, while the floor of the basin is comprised of a mix of native and non-native forbs in addition to areas of the same coastal scrub. Dominant species include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Areas of the basin floor support native forbs largely restricted to seasonally-moist sandy/gravelly soil locally, such as Palmer’s amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and a navarretia that is likely hollyleaf navarretia (Navarretia cf. atractyloides). In areas where the drains enter, small wetlands have formed, which support freshwater marsh species such as cattails (Typha sp.), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), water smartweed (Persicaria hydropiperoides), and seep monkeyflower (Erythranthe guttata).
Historical Context/Recent Changes
The western portion of the basin was recently scraped of its vegetation (5/14-15/20; fide S. Wasson), leaving deep furrows in the earth, ostensibly for “weed abatement”. This activity was done to both the floor as well as the slopes of the basin, but did not remove all the root systems of all plants, and
2 many shrubs were vigorously re-sprouting at the time of my visit. Based on an analysis of recent- historical aerial photos (Google Earth Pro), this clearing appears to be regular along the basin floor, and occurred at least in or prior to 2007 on the north slope (i.e., nearest the golf course), but the south slopes have been left relatively intact since c. 2007 (i.e., for 13 years) (Figures 2a and 2b).
Bird/Wildlife observations
I observed bird species that are typical of native scrub, as well as species typical of ornamental landscaping (planted street trees) in residential development, throughout southwestern California.
Several species observed are typical of riparian and freshwater marsh habitat, including Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea), Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) and Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). I observed three raptor species that all likely nest locally, Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Red-shouldered Hawk (B. lineatus) and Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii).
Suitability for California Gnatcatcher
No California Gnatcatcher was observed, and based on sightings in extreme southwestern San Bernardino County (e.g., www.eBird.org , Cooper et al. 2017), it is unlikely this species would occur.
It has not been recorded at the “Upland Trails” basins to the north, which support much more extensive scrub, for example. A large population is present in San Dimas (including at Bonelli Park, and nearby vic. San Dimas Canyon to the north), which is c. 10 km to the west of the site. Very small numbers (1-2 birds) have recently been documented at the North Etiwanda Preserve, which is c. 10 km northeast of the site. California Gnatcatchers are fully capable of dispersing across 10 km of unsuitable habitat (Ibid), so it is conceivable they could find the flood control basin; however, it is probably unlikely that a population would develop given the small size of the size and its isolation.
Still, based on the presence of coastal sage scrub between known populations of the species, I would recommend that future modifications be accompanied by surveys for California Gnatcatcher since it does support vegetation favored by the species.
Another sensitive species that could utilize the site include least Bells’ Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), a federally and state endangered songbird that frequents riparian habitat, and that can occur in fairly small patches. There are several records of least Bell’s Vireo from the Upland Trails area less than a kilometer to the north ( www.eBird.org) . Therefore, I would recommend that future modifications be accompanied by surveys for least Bell’s Vireo since it does support vegetation favored by the species.
The site could also be utilized by Burrowing Owl (Athene cunniculata), but this species requires very low, sparse vegetation, and is not known to persist in small habitat patches locally (nearest population is very large undeveloped vacant lots near the Ontario Airport, one of the last resident populations in southwestern California). Still, based on the presence of bare ground and flat land, I would recommend that future modifications be accompanied by surveys for Burrowing Owl since it does support conditions favored by the species.
Sources cited:
Cooper, D.S., J. Mongolo and C. Dellith. 2017. Status of the California Gnatcatcher at the northern edge of its range. Western Birds 48:124-140.
3 I hereby certify that the information herein is correct.
Daniel S. Cooper
President, Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.
TE-100008-3
Species list
Observations from July 24, 2020 (D.S. Cooper)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 1 1 fly-over (female) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 2
Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae) 1
Rufous/Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus/sasin) 4 Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 2 ad and juv southeast corner Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 1 juv. crashing through Shamel Ash along fenceline
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 1 soaring to north Nuttall's Woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) 2
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) 3 incl. juv
Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) 1
California Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica) 2
Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) 1
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 2
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) 2
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 15
House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) 1
Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) 6
House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) 20
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) 15
Lawrence's Goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei) 5
Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) 3 Juv. seen well - flew in calling to weedy patch; small pale bill, long tail, fine streaks on chest. Distinctive seet Spizella call. Assume other two birds were also juvs which aren't unexpected in early fall.
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 1
California Towhee (Melozone crissalis) 8
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) 1 singing along fenceline Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) 2 pair
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 1 male
Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 1
Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) 1 flight call top of euc Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) 3 family group; flew to south Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) 1 female/juv. male flushed from marshy patch
4
5 Figures
Figure 1. Location (red outline). The “Upland Trails” parkland referred to in the text is visible at the top of the photo (former gravel pits).
6 Figure 2a. 2007 aerial photo of basin, showing cleared north slope and floor.
Figure 2b. May 2019 aerial photo of basin, showing vegetated slopes and floor, including green area where drain supports wetland vegetation.
7 Contact Information
Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.
255 Satinwood Ave.
Oak Park, CA 91377
Cell: 323.397.3562
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.cooperecological.com
Overview
Daniel S. Cooper is the author of Important Bird Areas of California (Audubon California 2004), and is an authority on California bird ecology, identification and distribution. He has a strong background in natural history and biodiversity, and has designed and managed numerous monitoring and assessment projects for a variety of clients, both in the U.S. and abroad. He is an associate editor of the journal Western Birds, and works as an independent consultant and researcher.
Areas of Expertise
• Biological assessments for public and private lands;
• Bird and wildlife surveys, including protocol-level surveys; • Environmental compliance (CEQA/NEPA) and
monitoring
Years of Experience
CEM, Inc.: 11 years
Audubon California: 5 years
Education
BA/1995/Harvard University
MSc (Biogeography)/1999/UC Riverside
Certifications
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE-100008-2 (Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, California
Gnatcatcher).
CDFG Scientific Collecting Permit SC-10615 (as above; add:
San Diego Cactus Wren)
USGS Master Station Banding Permit #23049 (2001-2004)
Recent Boards
Associate Editor, Western Birds, 2014 -
Southern California Academy of Sciences, 2012 - 2015
Southern California Beach Metrics Working Group, 2009 - Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Regional Planning - Sensitive
Environmental Areas Tech. Adv. Com., 2009 - 2014.
Teaching/Advising
California State University, Los Angeles, CA. Advisor,
graduate student committee member.
Loyola Marymount Univ. (CUReS), Westchester, CA. Co-
taught BIO 398 (field biology); advisor, graduate student committee member.
UCLA Extension School, Los Angeles, CA. Instructor
(conservation biology and bird monitoring)
University of California, Riverside, CA. Graduate Teaching Assistant, geomorphology, natural disasters, & astronomy.
Daniel S. Cooper
President, Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc.
____________________________________
Long-term Projects
Griffith Park Natural History Survey
Researched and co-authored Griffith Park Wildlife
Management Plan. Supervised development of website
( www.griffithparkwildlife.org; with Cartifact, Inc.).
Developed first-ever study of wildlife of Griffith Park, focusing on the 2007 burn area, including plants,
breeding/wintering birds, reptiles/amphibians, and bats (ongoing).
Local Coastal Plan updates, Los Angeles Co. Worked
with County Department of Regional Planning to develop
conservation & management plan for Marina del Rey’s LCP update, and to inventory and map biodiversity hotspots in central Santa Monica Mountains for the L.A. Co. Coastal Zone LCP update (2009-2014).
Baseline Bird Survey, Ballona Wetlands, Los Angeles.
Designed, organized and carried-out first major all-bird survey of entire Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve and adjacent lands for Santa Monica Bay; coordinated protocol- level and volunteer-led surveys for sensitive species,
waterbirds, raptors, and breeding songbirds of the 500-acre site (2009-2012).
Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA. Visiting researcher in
2011, 2013, and 2016, studying the changes in avifauna and lepidoptera since 1993 surveys (as an undergraduate
student) (ongoing).
Selected Publications
Cooper, D.S. and A.E. Muchlinski. 2015. Recent decline of lowland populations of the western gray squirrel in the Los Angeles area of southern California. Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 114(1):42-53.
Bonebrake, T.C. and D.S. Cooper. 2014. A Hollywood
drama of butterfly extirpation and persistence over a
century of urbanization. Journal of Insect Conservation 18(4):683-692.
Cooper, D.S., L.S. Hall and A.J. Searcy. 2014. A population census of the cactus wren in Ventura County,
California. Western Birds 45(1):43-56
Cooper, D.S. 2012. Rare plants of Griffith Park, Los
Angeles, California. Fremontia 38(4)/39(1):18-24.
---------------- 2008. The use of historical data in the restoration of the avifauna of the Ballona Wetlands,
Los Angeles County, California. Natural Areas Journal
28:83-90.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Basin and Bulldozing 1 March 9, 2020 This document contains some photos of portions of the west side of the basin before, during, and after the first bulldozing which occurred on May 14 and 15, 2020. Before Bulldozing:
Photos of a portion of west side of the basin, looking west. Mature coastal sage scrub habitat intact on the south, north, and west slopes. Note the California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Yerba Santa (Eriodictyon californicum), and California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum ) in the foreground. These plants, and others associated with coastal sage scrub habitat, such as deerweed and prickly pear are densely covering both slopes of the west side of the basin. Photo taken April 11, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Basin and Bulldozing 2 Before Bulldozing:
Photo of west side of basin looking northeast. Note the California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Deerweed (Acmispon glaber) and California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum ) in the foreground. These plants, and others associated with coastal sage scrub habitat are densely covering both north and south slopes of the west side of the basin. Photo taken April 11, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Basin and Bulldozing 3 During Bulldozing:
West side of basin looking north east. South slope of basin pictured during bulldozing. Photo taken May 14, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Basin and Bulldozing 4 After Bulldozing:
West side of basin looking southwest. South slope of basin pictured after bulldozing. Note mature coastal sage scrub habitat destroyed. Note wetland station #6 by drain in upper center of image. Photo taken May 15, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Wetlands 1 March 9. 2022 This document contains photos of some of the wetlands in the basin as they appeared on April 9, 2020. I have included a screen shot of an aerial photo of the basin from the 2006 staff report on the status of the mitigated wetlands from the 1999 Streambed Alteration Agreement between the City and CDFW. This aerial photo shows numbers which correspond to drains located at specific wetlands (I have annotated this screen shot to clarify the numbers.) In the 2006 report, these numbers were used to designate ‘photo stations’ corresponding to each respective wetland. (Please see the 2006 staff report which is among the attachments I have sent.) In the April 2020 photos below, I have used the same numbering system to identify the respective wetlands. I am also including a screen shot of a section of an aerial photo showing the project location, that has been provided in the NOP. Comparing the photo with the labeled wetlands from the 2006 report with the project location photo from the NOP, one can clearly see that wetlands 4, 5 and 6 fall within the footprint of the housing development, and would thus, be destroyed by the project.
Screen shot of aerial photo showing numbered wetland stations.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Wetlands 2 Screen shot of aerial photo of the project location (from NOP).
Wetland corresponding to photo station #3 (drain seen at upper left). Photo taken April 9, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Wetlands 3 Wetland corresponding to photo station #4. Water dependent plant species (hydrophytes) identified: watercress, cattails, seep monkey flower. Photo taken April 9, 2020.
Villa Serena NOP comments attachment - S Wasson – Wetlands 4 Wetland corresponding to photo station #5. Drain of photo station #6 visible to the upper left. Intact sage scrub habitat visible on slopes. Photo taken April 9, 2020.
SENT VIA E-MAIL: March 8, 2022
[email protected]
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland, Development Services Department
460 North Euclid Avenue
Upland, California 91786
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villa Serena Specific Plan (Proposed Project)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. Our comments are recommendations on the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion and public release directly to South Coast AQMD as copies of the Draft EIR submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded.
In addition, please send all appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadsheets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files (not PDF files). Any delays in providing all supporting documentation for our review will require additional review time beyond the end of the comment period.
CEQA Air Quality Analysis
Staff recommends that the Lead Agency use South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website1 as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod2 land use emissions software, which can estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development and is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
South Coast AQMD has developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance threshol ds3 and localized significance thresholds (LSTs)4 to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. The localized analysis can be conducted by either using the LST screening tables or performing dispersion modeling.
The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.
Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road
1 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Handbook and other resources for preparing air quality analyses can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook . 2 CalEEMod is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com . 3 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf . 4 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds .
Joshua Winter 2 March 8, 2022
mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips, and hauling trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers and air pollution control devices), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, emissions from the overlapping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.
If the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions from long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5.
In the event that implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD, South Coast AQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the Draft EIR. The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the EIR will be the basis for evaluating the permit under CEQA and imposing permit conditions and limits. Questions on permits should be directed to South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385.
Mitigation Measures
In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts. Any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be analyzed. Several resources to assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project include South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook1, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan6, and Southern California Association of Government’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy7.
South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts from the Proposed Project are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
LS
SBC220217-04
Control Number
5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis . 6 South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-mar3-035.pdf (starting on page 86). 7 Southern California Association of Government s’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS can be found at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/PEIR/certified/Exhibit-A_ConnectSoCal_PEIR.pdf .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
N ATIVE A MERICAN HERITAGE COMMI SSION
February 8, 2022
Joshua Winter, Associate Planner
City of Upland
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Re: 2022020150, Villa Serena Specific Plan Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Winter:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
AB 52
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf
SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf .
Some of SB 18’s provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/ .
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center ( http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 1
BILL RODSTROM
Comments focus on threatened species, flood control capacity, nature deficit disorder, and wetlands, and provides mitigation suggestions.
• Threatened Species
o California Gnatchers: There was a small but suitable coastal sage scrub habitat that favored California Gnatcatchers. This bulldozed habitat must be allowed to grow back to see if gnatchers will return.
o Least Bell’s Vireos: Wetland habitats were destroyed. Least Bell’s Vireos may have been using this area.
o Burrowing Owls: On-site habitat must be allowed to return to see if Burrowing Owls will use the site for nesting purposes.
• Flood Control Capacity
o The f lood control basin, as designed, sufficiently stores stormwater runoff from heavy rainfall events in the area (up to 3-4 feet). A more severe or prolonged storm, or a much smaller basin would presumably fill the basin even higher.
o Nature Deficit Disorder
o The flood control basin is the only wildland within a half a mile of radius. It has been found to be rich in wild species of native plants, birds, reptiles, and many insects like native butterflies, bees, and dragonflies. o It provides an opportunity to explore nature and learn about biodiversity, a quality that is not provided by nearby parks due to being full of non-native trees and lawns.
• Wetlands
o Geotechnical report stated there was no surface water on site, but there have been three small wetland ponds from year-round runoff with wetland species like Willows (Salix), cattails (Typha), watercress (Nasturtium), etc., and associated breeding dragonflies, mallards and other wetland-dependent species.
o Mr. Rodstrom observed a four-foot-wide stream of water pouring through roughly 8 ft. diameter culverts on the west end of the proposed development.
Questions the source of water and where it will be diverted to.
• Mitigation
o Since this project will remove over nine acres of Sage Scrub native habitat, he recommends that all tree, shrub, and perennial plant landscaping be composed of California native plants to accommodate for native species. o Best use for the 15th Street Flood Control Basin is to allow it to grow back as an important bit of southern coastal sage scrub rather than to develop
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 2
CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE
Comments focus on issues of concern regarding the CDFW. • Scope of Authority
o Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority
o Project may result in takings as defined by State law under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), thus applicant may seek take authorization • Assessment of Biological Resources
o For adequate review and comment on the project by CDFW, the DEIR should include a complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the Project footprint, with particular emphasis on identifying rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species and associated habitat.
Assessment of various habitat types located within the footprint, and a map that identifies the location of each habitat type; recommends The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in the assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions.
General bio inventory of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species that are present or have the potential to be present within each habitat type onsite and within adjacent areas that could be affected by the project.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code, in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Notes that the CNDDB is not exhaustive and should be used as a starting point. A complete and recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including CSSC and State Fully Protected Species, including those that meet the C EQA definition (15380).
Should address seasonal variations in use and should not be limited to resident species. Focused species-specific surveys, with all proper credentials and protocol, are required. Acceptable procedures should be developed with consultation with CDFW and USFWS, when necessary. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought.
• Potential taking of Burrowing owl is anticipated, recommends the City to follow contents provided in Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 3 Mitigation (DFG, March 2012), which specifies three steps for project impact evaluations.
Thorough, recent floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities
Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region
Full accounting of all open space and mitigation/conservation lands within and adjacent to the Project
• Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources o Suggestions on included information in the DEIR
• Alternatives Analysis
o Recommendation of reasonable and feasible alternatives, including No Project • Mitigation Measures
o Suggestions on things to consider when proposing mitigation measures Fully protected species
Sensitive Plant Communities
CSSC
Mitigation scope and scenarios
Habitat Revegetation and Restoration Plans
Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Moving out of Harm’s Way
Translocation of species
• California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
o Least Bell’s vireo
• Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
o LSA is applicable to the Project; full impact disclosure to the resources affected, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting. • Additional comments and recommendations
o Recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in project landscape design plans
o CA Save our Water website
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 4 • Environmental Data
o Information in EIR reports to be incorporated into the CNDDB database for subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations • Filing Fees
JO BEANZ
Mr Beanz’s comments focus on aesthetics, increase in noise levels, reduced groundwater recharge, impacts to biological resources and endangerment of the wildlife, flora and fauna in the area.
• Biological and Groundwater
o Weed abatement activity destroyed the flora, fauna , and wildlife on site by destroying the habitats and applying herbicides. Basin needs a chance to grow back to accommodate for the wildlife.
o Water was present on site and included duck habitat before the weed abatement activity. Water was gone and a duck was found dead afterwards.
• Aesthetics:
o The Villa Serena project will block the current residents' beautiful views of the flood basin and the mountains. Decrease home values in the area.
GABRIELLENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS - KIZH NATION
o In agreement with the Specific Plan Amendment. Would like to be notified before ground disturbance for any work in the vicinity.
LETICIA ANDERSON
o Miss Anderson is concerned about the Project’s impact on wildlife, municipal departments, and traffic which will all create undesirable living conditions and affect property values.
LOIS SICKING
o Mr. Sicking is concerned about the project impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, aesthetics/visual, biological resources/wetlands/riparian, flood control detention basin capacity and flood control, water supply, groundwater, noise, transportation, drainag e/absorption and toxic/hazardous wastes from the adjacent landfill and stormwater pollution runoff.
o Previous “weed abatement” activity utilized heavy equipment such as bulldozers and herbicides which removed all vegetation on site. Discourages the use of heavy equipment in the basin.
NATASHA WALTON
• Biological Resources
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 5 o The Project must take into consideration the state of and species occupying the west side of the basin prior to bulldozing . further bulldozing activities must be prohibited on any portion of the basin.
o National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) indicates the presence of wetlands in this basin so project development will result in the loss of wetlands in the basin. o Recommends that surveys must be conducted using agency-approved protocols for special-status species, such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and burrowing owl
o Surveys must be conducted throughout the year during different times of the day to evaluate the presence of the whole variety of species using the basin, such as frogs and bats.
QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE
o No comments
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – RYAN NORDNESS
o Requires consultation in the event of any and all archaeological findings.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
o Storm drains in and around the site may be impacted by the project development. Review and approval by the City is required for any alterations to existing storm drain patterns. o Project Site lies within Zone X (outside the 500 yr. floodplain) of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Impacts associated with the Project’s occurrence in this zone must be addressed. o The District owns the existing West Cucamonga By-Pass Channel within the scope of the Project. On-site or Off -site improvements to this area, as part of the Project, would require review and approval from the District.
o Project must identify and protect the alignment of future flood control facilities.
SCAG
o Connect SoCal goals may be pertinent to the proposed Project. A side-by-side comparison of SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals with the proposed Project’s goals representing consistency or non-consistency is recommended.
o Proposed project appears to be in or near a Freshwater Pond and/or Freshwater Emergent Wetland according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory.
Connect SoCal recommends reviewing the 2020 Connect SoCal Natural and Farm & Farm Lands Conservation Technical Report for strategies to protect and enhance biodiversity, habitat, wildlife areas and agricultural areas in the SCAG region. o For information on growth forecasts for the regional and applicable jurisdictions for years 2016 to 2045, refer to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report .
o SCAG staff recommends a review of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for Connect SoCal for guidance, as appropriate. It includes a list of project-level performance standards-based mitigation measures that may be considered for adoption and
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 6 implementation by lead, responsible, or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and feasible.
SHARI WASSON
Mr. Wasson’s comments encourage that EIR adequately address modifications to the basin by including detailed plans covering depths, slopes, berm height changes, capacity, flood risks, access roads, planned habitat restoration, etc. for the proposed Project.
• Biological Resources
o Bulldozing activity on the west side of the basin destroyed or severely damaged the native coastal sage scrub habitat and nearly all plants, including small trees and strands of prickly pear cactus.
o Species that are regenerating after the bulldozing should be assessed, along with the small areas of habitat that remain intact on the west side of the basin. o East side of the basin shares some common plant and animal species as the west side which should be assessed to help inform the assessment of the west side. o Further bulldozing of all parts of the basin should be prohibited to prevent further damage to biological resources
o Modifications to the east side would result in damage and destruction of coastal sage scrub habitat and wetland areas on the east side of the basin. o Wetland/riparian project issue: Plant species supported by these wetlands include cattails (Typha sp.), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), water smartweed (Persicaria hydropiperoides), and seep monkey flower (Erythranthe guttata, formerly classified as Mimulus guttata) tha t would be impacted from this project.
o Wetland/riparian project issue: Wetlands on the west side of the basin which would be destroyed from the proposed development. EIR needs to address mitigation for these wetlands.
o Wetland/riparian project issue: There is a presence of a list of bird species that was observed by the Biologist at the time of his visit. Some of these birds include the coastal California gnatcatcher (threatened), least Bell’s vireo (endangered), and burrowing owl (species of special concern). Protocol surveys for these species must be conducted. o Wetland/riparian project issue: Presence of the Baja California tree frog, lizards, cottontail rabbits, ground squirrels, and coyotes in the basin. Biological assessment of these species must be conducted.
o A fair and comprehensive biological assessment must be conducted for wetlands and wild species and should involve multiple site visits at different times of year and times of day to gain a better understanding of the biological resources on site .
SCAQMD
o Recommends the use of SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, website and C alEEMod land use emissions software when preparing the greenhouse gas and air quality analyses.
o The Lead Agency must quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare them to
5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\02 NOP-Scoping\00 NOP Comments\01 NOP comments summary.docx) 7 SCAQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds and Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to determine project’s air quality impacts. o Construction and operation related air quality impacts must be addressed in the analysis. Emissions from both phases must be combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.
o If the proposed Project generates diesel emissions, then Lead Agency must perform a mobile source health risk assessment.
o If a permit is required from the SCAQMD, the SCAQMD should be identified as the Responsible Agency for this project.
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) APPENDIX A-3
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank
City of Upland
Villa Serena Specific Plan Project
Environmental Impact Report
Public Scoping Meeting
June 8th, 2022 | 5:00 PM
Introduction
•Lead Agency: City of Upland
•Robert D. Dalquest, Development Serv. Director
•Joshua Winter, Senior Planner
•Environmental Consultant: LSA
•Carl Winter, Associate/Project Manager
•Applicant: The Colonies Partners, L.P.
Purpose of Meeting
•Present Project Information
•Explain the Environmental Review Process
•Discuss Scope and Content of the EIR
•Define the Public Input Process
•No Decision will be made on the Project Tonight
Scoping Meeting
•The purpose of the scoping meeting is to discuss the scope andcontentoftheEIR. •The project merits and the City’s decision on project will beconsideredatlatermeetings. •All speakers are asked to sign in so that the City can keep arecordofattendanceforfuturenotification(s). •Speakers are encouraged to also submit their comments inwriting. •The public may submit comments electronically to:[email protected] •As appropriate,comments and information will be addressedand/or incorporated into the Draft EIR
Scoping Meeting Agenda
•Proposed Project
•What is CEQA?
•EIR Process
•Public Comments
•Closing
Proposed Project
•Development of 65 homes within 9.2 acres of the existing 15th Street basin.The remaining portion of the basin will consist of 11.1 acres. •The remaining basin will be excavated 7-feet lower than the existing basin low point to ensure that the 100-year water surface in the basin remains below the top of existing levees.
•The basin will continue to slope from the east to the west . •The remaining 15th Street basin will continue to operate as a flood control basin to minimize and control the release of storm runoff to the meet the capacity of downstream flood control facilities.
Proposed Project
•Connection to Campus Avenue via 15th Street to provide access to the project site.
•Installation of a ‘knuckle’ at the Fernando Avenue and 15th Street. •Park feature located between the ‘knuckle’ and 15th Street extension.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
•CEQA Statute: PRC §21000 et seq.
•Guidelines: “How to” for implanting statute
What is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?
•An EIR is a public disclosure document that provides objective information to inform the public and decision-makers on the potential environmental effects of the Project
•Identify potential project impacts,appropriate mitigation,and feasible alternatives to reduce potentially significant impacts •Provide transparency during the City’s decision-making process •Provides opportunity for public review and comment on the Project •Impact analysis and determinations are based on facts,reasonable assumptions based on facts,and expert opinion supported by fact.
EIR Process
•Prepare Project Description
•30-day Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Distributed for Public Review: February 8 to March 9, 2022.
Comments received (13) from the public, tribal, and State/regional agencies •Materials for the Project may be downloaded from the City’s website:
www.uplandca.gov/environmental-review
•Public Scoping Meeting
•Prepare/finalize Technical Studies (in process) and Draft EIR •45-day Draft EIR Public Review
•Prepare Final EIR (prepare Response to Comments, findings, etc.) •Public Hearings/City Action on Project
EIR Process
Areas of Proposed Analysis
•Aesthetics
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Hydrology and Water Quality
•Noise & Vibration
•Transportation & Traffic
Also Addressed: Cumulative Effects and Project Alternatives
Next Steps
•Prepare the Draft EIR.Comments raised during the NOP comment period and at the Public Scoping Meeting will be identified and,as appropriate,will be addressed in the Draft EIR
•As required,the Draft EIR analysis will be supported by project-specific technical studies and modeling data.
•Project impacts will be measured against established local and/or regional thresholds.
•As warranted and feasible,mitigation will be identified to reduce the level of significance of project impacts.
•The City will exercise independent judgement regarding the contents and adequacy of the Draft EIR prior to public review.
Next Steps (continued)
•Distribute Draft EIR for Public Review and Comment (45 days) •After closure of the review period,the City will respond to relevant concerns raised during the Public Review period.
•Responses to comments received in the Draft EIR will be made available prior to the first public hearing
•The Final EIR will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and a decision regarding recommendation for the City Council.The City Council will provide the decision regarding acceptance of mitigation,overrides (if any),and certification of the EIR.
Public Comments
•To facilitate later notification, please provide your name/address prior to each comment.
•Written comments may be provided in lieu of oral comments. Written comment forms have been provided and can be forwarded to:
•Joshua Winter, Senior Planner at: [email protected] Please reference “Villa Serena” in the subject line.
Or via mail to:
Joshua Winter, Senior Planner
City of Upland
Development Services Department/Planning Division
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Thank you for your participation!
•Please sign in to facilitate notification of future project actions. •Environmental documents are available online at:
• https://www.uplandca.gov/environmental-review
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) APPENDIX A-4
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 1 Robert Dalquest: City of Upland
Joshua Winter: City of Upland
Carl Winter: LSA
Council Chamber, Upland City Hall
460 N Euclid Ave, Upland, CA 91786
SCOPING MEETING COMMENTS
Introduction, Presentation by Carl Winter: 0-12:50
Darell Maxey: 12:50-16:19
C omments focus on adequacy of environmental assessment methods, weed abatement activities and its effect on the integrity of environmental analysis. • Identifies as a retired civil engineer
• Residency @ 1310 S Upland Hill Drive? (300 ft north of proposed site) • Basis of his opposition in 2020 was that the environmental assessment of the site was flawed ○ Site conditions are different if site visits occurred during dry vs wet conditions, with wet conditions there would be more fauna and flora species active vs dry conditions ○ If assessed correctly (Site), then there would be significant impacts to biological resources • Detention basin should not be reduced in size
• ‘Records’ show that the detention basin was to be reserved for wildlife, vegetation, and flood detention
• Post April 2020, some time after the IS/MND approval, observed construction equipment on the western portion of the basin stripping vegetation (and potentially scaring or taking any wildlife) ○ These events would affect any future environmental assessments of the site and should be considered in the environmental analysis
○ Unless the Project Applicant and the City waited for conditions to improve, how can a fair evaluation of biological resources at the site be done
○ For evidence, observed the events, and took video of the site when it was flooded ○ Points out that Google Earth aerial comparisons of 8/1/2021 vs 8/15/2020 shows where stripped vegetation occurred.
○ Noted that he provided photos with his letter
Joe Hudson 16:40-24:43
Comments focus on purpose of the meeting, questions about the knuckle, questions about the wetland status of the site, and the EIR document.
• Residency @ 1335 E 15th St, 44 years
• Has observed the site in all conditions
• Questions about the purpose of the meeting
o Confusion about the map-poster as it shows no modifications (same as original?) • Questions about the knuckle
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 2 o Explanation by City staff on the purpose of the knuckle, the context of why that was included in the Project, including the trail system additions (April 2020 Planning Commission hearings, and civil lawsuit explanation)
• Question about whether the State identifies the site as a wetland/registered? • Question about whether the EIR was going to be ‘seasonal’/methodology of biological professionals for analysis purposes
Unidentified commenter : 24:43-28:35
Question about the EIR availability and the timing of the tech studies and analysis. • Question about when the EIR would be available, and how does that coincide with the tech studies and site visits for biology
○ Explanation by Carl Winter that the EIR requires the appropriate tech studies and analysis before the EIR can be drafted, and that the timing of such reports vary, thus the absence of a definitive schedule. The methodology of (i.e. Bio) studies are specific to each analysis and the timing varies between resources areas.
Dennise Greenberg: 28:40-32:22
Comments focus on weed abatement activities.
• Residency and property owned: 1299 Armando St and 1246 Upland Hill Dr S (both on either side of the Project site)
• Concerns of weed abatement activities, the timing of the events, and negative influence on a fair environmental assessment
• “How she does weed abatement without taking wildlife/plants” • “Weed abatement destroys the environment”
• Question/remark on disclosure of when weed abatement activities occur, and when would site visits for environmental assessments would occur
Joe Hudson: 32:22-34:48
Question about weed abatement activity.
• Question on why weed abatement does not occur on the entirety on the flood detention basin o Explanation by City staff that part of the property is privately owned, the City sends notices to property owners for weed abatement requirements; the City-owned part of the basin is under the purview of the Public Works Department, and any questions on why inactivity on that portion should be deferred to Public Works.
Natasha Walton: 34:50-42:04
Comments focus on weed abatement concerns, basin and associated permitting, requests for certain features in the EIR, and proposed alternative.
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 3 • Identifies as a 18 year Upland resident, wildlife biologist • Disappointed that project is occurring on one of Upland’s ‘last biological treasures’ • Pleased that an EIR is proceeding instead of the flawed IS/MND o Anticipates that there would still be significant negative impacts to biological resources • Expresses desire for full disclosure of biological impacts even before Planning Commission even considers the Project
• Sherry Watson’s request
o Emails dated 3/9/22 and 6/8/22
o Consider State identified species prior to weed abatement activities that have occurred in May 2020 and May 2022 on the western side of the basin o Concerned of whether the Property owner submitted required bird surveys prior to each weed abatement activity, would like this to be addressed in the EIR o Prohibit any future weed abatement on-site until project determination o Address the loss of wetlands and special status species (Gnatcatcher, Virio, burrowing owls)
o Conduct surveys at various times during the year at various times of the day/night since species have different active times (frogs/bats at night) • Request a delineation of jurisdictional waters (JD) of the entire basin o Concern that a combination of RWQCB’s 401K, USACOE 401, and/or CDFW 1602 permitting may be necessary
o Anticipates the need for streambed alteration (last agreement with CDFW was in 1999? Vs 2022 today)
o Included a screenshot from the National Wetlands Inventory that indicates wetlands in the basin
o Request that all maps in the document include the eastern side of the basin (due to modifications impacting that area as well)
• Expresses desire for EIR to address CDFW’s comments from 3/27/22 letter (NOP response) o Comments of concern include proper protocol, species of concern, and Lake/streambed alteration
• Proposes a project alternative
o To preserve or enhance local quality of life
o Donation of the basin to a NPO for preservation
Dan Russell: 42:20-44:20
Comments focus on water shortage.
• Residency @ 1498 (Not clear) Way? (by College Center) • Alluded to Cambria, CA as an example of no water for construction o Explanation by City staff of the context behind Cambria’s moratorium/no water meters/different geographical region
o Additional explanation of the 5yr Urban Water Management Plan done by the City’s Water Department, the plan would cover water shortage concerns related to the City
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 4 Unidentified commenter : 44:42-46:05
Comments focus on the basin modification and scope of the impact analysis for biology. • Question about whether the deepening of the basin will affect the slope • Question about whether the scope of the biological impact analysis will cover the eastern part of the basin
• Question about who the contractor might be for doing the grading
Joe Hudson: 46:11-48:35
Comments focus on private property matters and water concerns. • Express disdain that while there is a water shortage, Project is adding more people • Disagreement of whether the Project is worth replacing the basin which has also contributed to groundwater recharge
• Comment on Upland being a small-town, should not be like Los Angeles • Question on whether the City can purchase the property from the Applicant
Denise Greenberg: 48:48-50:00
Comments focus on processing proposed projects.
• Pondered why the City doesn’t reject the Project/bad deal remarks • Raised ethical concerns of the City processing the Project • “EPA/or whoever says that the site shouldn’t be developed” • Raised question of why the Project Applicant doesn’t pursue land by the railroad tracks and build condominiums
Closing of Meeting by Robert Dalquest: 50:00-51:14
Unidentified Commenter: 51:15-51:48
Comments focus on legality of resources presented for the scoping meeting. • Question of whether resources provided in the meeting (the posterboard visual) is legally required
o Explanation by City staff that it is a practice, not legally required
Darell Maxey: 51:52-56:45
Comments focus on response to comments.
• Question of whether comments collected this around will be dismissed with the same reasonings as the prior iteration (the approval prior to the lawsuit), such as ‘not pertinent’ o Explanation by Carl Winter that responses to comments cannot be speculated on, and that response to comments then is only applicable to the information available at that time the IS/MND was prepared; response to comments today for the EIR will be only
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 5 applicable to the information available at current conditions, not from the IS/MND conditions.
• Question of air quality impacts then vs now
o Explanation by Carl Winter that given no change in intensity of project, it can be reasoned that air quality impact discussion prior would be like the discussion done in the IS/MND. Additionally, with SCAQMD’s new upcoming model, the authors of the EIR and those conducting technical reports can only adjust the parameters and not the script of the model itself. They can only check to see if the data being inserted into the model is accurate.
Joe Beans/Joe Bolin: 56:55-1:00:20
Comments focus on biological and aesthetic impacts, and procedural related matters. • Identifies as founder of Friends of 15th St
• Sent emails and pictures to Joshua Winter
• Loss of wildlife noises, reminiscing on early years prior to current conditions as development sprung around Upland
• Mentioned a CDFW call about weed abatement activities? • Pictures of dead ducks after a weed abatement activity (pictures with Joe Hudson?) • Remark on prior civil lawsuit victory
• Aesthetic concern of current dead-end environment on 15th St, c omment about a nearby school, and concern of adding 65 units to the area
• Question of whether the police force can handle the addition of 65 more homes • Concern of more development despite water shortage and conservation • 15th St basin is one of the few left in the region that isn’t concerted (mentioned Chino and Fontana?), losing a rechargeable basin
• Question of whether a traffic study was conducted
• Comment on letting the basin grow back before further action is done • Comment on pictures of basin prior to drought
• Comment on consideration of impacts affecting the eastern part of the basin
Actual Closing of Meeting by Carl Winter: 1:00:20-1:03:52
J UNE 8, 202 @ 5PM
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN S COPING MEETING S UMMARY 5/10/24 (P:\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix A-4 Scoping Meeting Summary.docx) 6
COMMENTS VIA EMAIL
Mary Ann Macias : June 6, 2022, 7:41:10 AM
Comments focus on built environment, water shortage concerns, and traffic safety. • Assumption that the purpose of the scoping meeting is to explain the details of the project the City had already approved
• More homes in a city that is already full of dense housing • Streets need repair, mentions Foothill, Arrow Hwy, Campus • Comment on water conservation yet more development
• Comment on development being built near an intersection Baseline(16th) and Campus, notorious for auto accidents
Dan Russell: Date/Time unknown
Comments focus on various post-implementation methodologies, responsible parties involved in certain activities of the project, and disclosure related concerns. • No meeting notices have been posted on the three billboard signs on 15th St for this meeting • Question on origins of water used for construction
• Question on who is financially liable for city water used in construction including dust abatement and accessing fire hydrants
• Question on who will monitor for potential illegal usage of fire hydrants • If the project is to be implemented, will future home buyers be provided notice about the closed Upland dump and the methane gas associated with that site; and will they be notified about the fact that the Project is located within a flood control plain • Question on the existence of cancer studies in the area from potential environmental health issues related to toxic gases, residual waste in the floodplain area and related wildlife habitat conditions
• Question of who will be financially liable for potential destruction to homes related to potential water runoff/flood conditions and methane gas related events • Question of the details of the road access plan of the site; would 16th St through the SCE easement south of the power station and via the current traffic signal at the golf course be possible to reduce automobile pollution and improve road safety; this routing could present a faster route to Campus Hills shopping and access to the I-210 • Concerns of traffic rates on Grove Ave and 14th St due to utilization of WAZE to detour around Foothill
• Concern of 15th St traffic utilization, who will be financially liable for reconditioning existing access north/south streets that aren’t in best conditions • Question of the hours of construction, who is responsible for monitoring noise and dust conditions; will appropriate emergency government contact information be posted in the construction area (including wildlife protection agencies?) • Comment on observation of probable illegal bulldozer operation last year with no dust control and no notification to proper authorities of what was being accomplished
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) APPENDIX A-5
INITIAL STUDY
V ILLA S ERENA S PECIFIC P LAN P ROJECT
U PLAND , C ALIFORNIA
R ECIRCULATED D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT
O CTOBER 2024
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\TCI2201 Villa Serena\03 Focused EIR\Draft EIR\October 2024 Draft EIR\Appendices - Current\00-Appendix Cover Sheets.docx (10/15/24) This page intentionally left blank
INITIAL STUDY
VILLA SERE NA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CITY OF UPLAND
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
October 2019
The City of Upland has independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgment in making the determinations contained herein, pursuant to Section 21082.1(c) of the California Public Resources Code, Division 13 (California Environmental Quality Act).
INITIAL STUDY
VILLA SERE NA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CITY OF UPLAND
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of Upland, Development Services Department
460 N. Euclid Avenue
Upland, California 91785
Joshua Winter
Associate Planner
[email protected]
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-931
LSA Project No. FTR1801
October 2019
Villa Serena Specific Plan Project City of Upland
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2019
Table of Contents Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 AUTHORIZATION .................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY .................................................................................. 1-2
1.5 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE INITIAL STUDY .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.6.1 City of Upland .......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.6.2 LSA Associates, Inc. .................................................................................................. 1-3
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING ......................................................................... 2-1
2.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS ......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ........................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Demolition and Grading .......................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.3 Design Elements ...................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.4 Common Area Open Space ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity........................................................................ 2-4
2.3.6 Circulation................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.7 Landscaping ............................................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.8 Infrastructure........................................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .................................................................... 3-1
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 3-1
3.2 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ..................................................... 3-1
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 3-2
3.3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................ 3-7
3.3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-8
3.3.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 3-18
3.3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 3-21
3.3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................... 3-23
3.3.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 3-25
3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................... 3-32
3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... 3-38
3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................ 3-43
3.3.11 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................... 3-52