F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The City received twenty-two (22) letters or email comments on the Draft EIR. Of these comments, seven were received from State, regional, or local agencies; two were from community/business organizations; one was from a tribal government; and twelve received from private parties. All comments have been responded to within this document. Comments that address environmental concerns have been specifically addressed.
Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states: a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail, giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: 1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or 2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.
Information provided in this volume of the Final EIR clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document.
An errata section to the EIR (Section 3.0) has been prepared to indicate if or what minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR were needed as a result of City review and comments received during the public review period.
This Response to Comments document, along with the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) is included as part of the Final EIR for consideration by the City decision- makers prior to a vote to certify the Final EIR.
7 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
2.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR All comments have been responded to within this document. Comments that address environmental concerns have been specifically addressed. Comments were received from the following parties:
Table 2.A: Draft EIR Public Comments Received
Letter Date Received Agency/Individual Transmitted by: Commenter Number
1 4/29/20 Maureen Aldridge Email Maureen Aldridge
2 4/30/20 Jeremy Fulton Email Jeremy Fulton
3 4/30/20 Natasha O’Brien Email Natasha O’Brien
4 4/29/20 Department of Water Email Nadell Gayou Resources
5 5/4/20 Marilynne Jensen Email Marilynne Jensen
6 5/13/20 Gabrieleño Band of Email Gabrieleño Administrator Mission Indians-Kizh Nation 7 5/13/20 Carol Curtis Burson Email Carol Curtis Burson
8 5/29/20 Los Angeles Fire D Letter Ronald M. Durbin
9 6/12/20 Jeralyn Klasik Email Jeralyn Klasik
10 6/10/20 Caltrans Division of Letter Philip Crimmins Aeronautics
11 6/15/20 Bob Gerecke Letter Bob Gerecke
12 6/15/20 Los Angeles County Letter Bruce Durbin Airport Land Use Commission
13 6/15/20 City of Upland Letter Mike Poland Development Service Department Planning Division
14 6/15/20 Christine Blair Letter Christine Blair
8 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Table 2.A: Draft EIR Public Comments Received
Letter Date Received Agency/Individual Transmitted by: Commenter Number
15 6/15/20 California Department of Letter Felicia Silva Fish and Wildlife
16 6/15/20 Los Angeles County Letter Adriana Raza Sanitation District
17 6/15/20 Jennifer Jaffe Email Jennifer Jaffe
18 6/15/20 Drew Ready Email Drew Ready
19 6/15/20 Helaine Goldwater Email Helaine Goldwarer 20 6/15/20 Claremont/Upland Area Email Geoff Hamill Realtors and Dozens of Community Members
21 6/15/20 Sustainable Claremont Email Richard C. Haskell
22 6/20/20 Lissa Petersen Email Lissa Petersen
The comment letters are identified as Letters 1 through 22. Aside from the courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment is included in this Final EIR. Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter. Responses to comments were sent to the agencies that provided comments.
Information provided in this volume of the Final EIR clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document.
An Errata section to the EIR (Section 3.0) has been prepared to identify minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR necessary to address City review and comments received during the public review period.
9 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10 Letter 1 Chris Graham
From: J Davis
Maureen, thank you for your comments on this project and I will make sure they are forwarded to the environmental consultant.
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Maureen Aldridge
My concern with this project is the increased traffic on both Foothill and Monte Vista. With 62 units and an average of 2 cars per unit that is approximately 124 cars. With the potential of Amazon Distribution Center opening up just East of the project and, 1-1 there vehicles using Foothill and Monte vista along with the vehicle from the Commons this will have a huge impact on the air quality. Also, this project is in the flight path of Cable Airport. Planes are supposed to turn at Monte Vista and head South before turning. But ,as we know they do not, instead the fly straight out over the houses, and colleges. With the spate of small 1-2 plane crashes recently this is a concern. Maureen Aldridge 1328 N Mills Ave, Claremont
Sent from my iPhone
1 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 1: Maureen Aldridge Response to Comment 1-1. The commenter is concerned the analysis of the proposed Project did not take into account the cumulative impacts on air quality of the proposed Project traffic impacts with those of the proposed Amazon Distribution Center located east of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed Project’s cumulative air quality impacts on Section 4.1 Air Quality is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, The Commons Project, City of Claremont and City of Upland, Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County, California LSA, January 2020 in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.1-19 of the Draft EIR, the evaluation of air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project includes the following:
Determine the short-term construction air quality impacts based on SCAQMD emissions thresholds;
Determine the long-term air quality impacts, including vehicular traffic, on both onsite and offsite air quality sensitive uses based on South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds; and
Determine the required mitigation measures to reduce short-term and long-term on-site air quality impacts from all sources.
The latest version of CalEEMod (v2016.3.2) was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with air districts in California. The proposed Project’s land use, construction characteristics (e.g., duration, equipment usage), anticipated daily trips, energy consumption and other variables were entered into CalEEMod. Emission outputs for each criteria pollutant were compared to the daily short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) significance thresholds identified in Table 4.1.F of the Draft EIR. The CalEEMod outputs from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis.
Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix H-1 of the Draft EIR), the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,089 vehicle trips per day. The proposed Project’s average daily trips were entered in the CalEEMod. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, hearth, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating and cooking. As provided in Table 4.1.K (page 4.1-29 of the Draft EIR), none of the criteria pollutants would exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds during operation/occupation of the proposed Project; therefore, Project-related long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
In addition, Section 4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts of the Draft EIR evaluated the cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on air quality. The list of cumulative projects, which includes the Amazon warehouse, evaluated in the Draft EIR is provided in Table 2.A. According to the Draft EIR the proposed Project does not exceed air quality thresholds and is determined to have less than significant Project- specific impacts. The Amazon Center has been included as a cumulative Project; as such, this facility has been considered in the air quality analysis presented in the environmental document.
13 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
The proposed Project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during operation. The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan describes and evaluated regional/area-wide conditions within the air quality Basin and sets regional emission significance thresholds for both construction and operation of development projects. In analyzing cumulative impacts from a proposed Project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. If a project does not exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily regional emission thresholds, the project-specific impacts would also not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. While the proposed Project would contribute emissions to the cumulative condition, its long-term operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant threshold; therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to the long-term condition would not be cumulatively considerable. No revisions to the Draft EIR based on the comment.
Response to Comment 1-2. The commenter is concerned with safety of aircraft overflights on the proposed Project due to recent air plane crashes related to Cable Airport.
Aircraft safety is addressed in Section 4.6 Hazards in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that Cable Airport aircraft have been observed flying on unapproved flightpaths; however, the City of Claremont and the Project applicant do not have control over flightpaths of aircraft departing and arriving from Cable Airport. An Aircraft Risk Analysis, titled Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites (Appendix F2 of the Draft EIR) was prepared to describe the potential for an aircraft accident that could result in casualties to persons residing on the Project site. The potential for an accident causing a casualty on the Project site was determined by estimating the likelihood of an accident occurring and, given such an event, estimating the likelihood of injury to a resident. The technical report included analysis for the Project site and comparable analysis to five other Cable Airport-adjacent sites with similar development characteristics as the proposed Project. Analysis determined that the annual maximum risk of a severe injury or death to an occupant of the Project site due to an airplane crash from Cable Airport was equivalent to 27 chances in 1 million.
In regard to recent aircraft-related incidents on or near Cable Airport, and for the purpose of supplementing Appendix F2 to the EIR, the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites prepared by ACTA, five (5) aircraft accidents occurred between January 1, 2017 and the close of the comment period on June 15, 2020. As they occurred after the ACTA Report was prepared, these five accidents were not included in that report. The specifics of each incident are as follows, based on publically available data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
1. September 17, 2018 – Aircraft experienced engine power loss on short final approach (landing) to Runway 24. The aircraft came to rest in an open field to the east of the airport, in the City of Upland. No fatalities. No injuries to persons on the ground. 2. May 1, 2019 – Aircraft lost engine oil pressure shortly after takeoff. The pilot attempted to return to the airport. The aircraft made a forced landing in a field to the east of the airport, in the City of Upland. No fatalities. No injuries to persons on the ground. 3. June 15, 2019 – Aircraft lost engine power on takeoff. The pilot circled back to departure runway and executed an emergency landing on airport property south of the runway. The Aircraft came to rest in the City of Upland, in or near the Runway Protection Zone (“RPZ”), an
14 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
area set aside by FAA regulations to accommodate potential incidents of this type. No fatalities. No injuries to persons on the ground. 4. November 7, 2019 – Aircraft crashed to the east of the airport, off airport property and to the east of Mountain Avenue, in the City of Upland. One fatality (pilot). No injuries to persons on the ground. 5. May 1, 2019 – Aircraft lost engine power on takeoff at low altitude. It bounced and made a forced landing in an open field unrelated to the Project site. No fatalities. No injuries to persons on the ground. All five incidents occurred in the City of Upland. None of these accidents involved the Project site in Claremont. There were no aircraft accidents of any kind recorded in the City of Claremont between January 1, 2017 and June 15, 2020. The addition of these five accidents to the 22 accidents documented in ACTA Report results in a total of 27 accidents within a 30 year period, or an average accident rate of less than one per year. Finally, as has been the case for every accident in the vicinity of Cable Airport since 1990, there were no injuries to persons on the ground. This information does not impact the conclusion of the ACTA Report or the Draft EIR. No revision to the Draft EIR is necessary.
To further reduce the potential for severe injury or death on the site, the Project applicant has designed a 150-foot wide swath of land, devoid of buildings and tall vegetation (i.e., residential buildings, retail/commercial buildings, tall trees, etc.) as a feature that lines up with the Cable Airport Runway 6/24. This area of the proposed Project is designed in this manner to allow for a cleared area in the event of an aircraft departure failure from Cable Airport, and was designed with input from the Cable Airport owner. The void of development on the Project site in this area would reduce the potential for building damage and severe injury or casualty to site occupants, if an emergency landing of a Cable Airport aircraft needs to be performed on the Project site.
The Draft EIR determined, although the probability of the proposed Project residents being severely injured or killed due to a Cable Airport accident is low, the probability is still greater than if the proposed Project was not developed on the specific site. As such, impacts pertaining to this threshold would be potentially significant with implementation of the proposed Project and mitigation measures would be needed to reduce such an impact. The Draft EIR proposed Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A, 4.6.1B and 4.6.1C; however, these mitigation measures are disclosures for onsite residents to notify them they are residing next to Cable Airport. The Draft EIR determined that no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the potential hazard impact from a Cable Airport aircraft crash occurring on the Project site. The analysis also concluded that a change of the proposed Project design would not be feasible as the proposed Project would then not meet the objectives of development. Based on this, the Draft EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required pursuant to CEQA. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment received.
15 Letter 2
From: J Davis To: Jeremy Subject: Re: The Commons Project - comments Date: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:39:41 PM
Thank you for your comments Jeremy, I will make sure they get to the environmental consultant.
Jennifer Davis
From: Jeremy
Hi City of Claremont,
As a resident, I'm writing to oppose the planned Commons Project near my house. I feel there 2-1 is too much traffic in this area already, especially on Foothill Blvd.
Thanks so much,
Jeremy Fulton F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Letter 2: Jeremy Fulton Response to Comment 2-1. The commenter is opposed to the proposed Project and is concerned there is too much traffic in the area.
The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed Project’s impacts on traffic in Section 4.10. Figure 4.10.1, Study Area Intersections, illustrates the locations of all study area intersections. Roadway operations and relationship between capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of Level of Service (LOS), which is defined using the letter grades A through F and reflect the reality that conditions rapidly deteriorate as traffic approaches the absolute capacity of the roadway facility. Under such conditions, congestion is experienced. There is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (i.e., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays. This near-capacity situation is labeled LOS E. Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic would exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. LOS can be characterized for the whole intersection, each intersection approach, and by each lane group. Table 4.10.C in the Draft EIR provides the definition of the LOS used by the City of Claremont. Based on the City of Claremont General Plan, the minimum acceptable LOS for a major arterial is LOS E and the minimum acceptable LOS for a rural secondary arterial is LOS D. Existing levels of service at study area intersections are identified in Table 4.10.A in the Draft EIR. All study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour times. Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour conditions. The a.m. peak hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 1,089 vehicle trips per day, with 118 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour, and 88 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. When the proposed Project is added to the existing traffic the impact on the study area intersections is less than significant (refer to Draft EIR, Table 4.10.G) and all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS and no mitigation is required. This environmental document uses City General Plan determined thresholds for determining what is acceptable, so while it may seem unacceptable to individuals, the proposed Project meets the legal thresholds for acceptable amounts of traffic.
In addition, the Draft EIR (which is based on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed Project and provided in Appendix H) evaluates the Project plus projects proposed in the Project area that would have cumulative traffic effects (more traffic) on the area roadways. As shown in Appendix E of the TIA, all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative with Project Traffic volumes. Given the distance between the proposed Project site and cumulative project sites, impacts associated with air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, or conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation would not comingle and create impacts over and above those associated with the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on traffic and no mitigation is required.
The EIR adequately analyses potential impacts of the proposed Project and the cumulative Upland Project on traffic pursuant to CEQA requirements. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
18 From: J Davis Letter 3 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: The Commons Project-Comments Date: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:38:40 PM
Thank you for your comments Natasha, I will make sure they get to the environmental consultant.
Jennifer Davis
From: Natasha OBrien
Hello Ms. Davis,
I am writing you in response to the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Report. I am not in agreement and do not support The Commons project. Foothill Blvd. is already too congested during morning and afternoon commute times, which increases the amount of time 3-1 to access freeways (210 and 10). In addition, there are too many proposed units to fit in such a small area, as this proposal does not include the units that will be on Upland city lines as well.
Thank you, Natasha O'Brien-Fulton
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
20 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Letter 3: Natasha O’Brien Response to Comment 3-1. The commenter is opposed to the proposed Project and states there are too many units on such a small parcel. In addition, the analysis does not include the residential units on the Upland site. The commenter has concerns there is too much traffic on Foothill Boulevard which increases the time to get to the I-210 and I-10 freeways.
The Draft EIR analyses the impacts of the proposed Project’s density in Section 4.8, Land Use and Planning. According to the Draft EIR, Subsection 4.8.2.4, the proposed Project includes the development of 27 single-family homes, 20 townhomes, 15 second-story residential flats, and 5,000 square feet of retail space below the residential flats on 6.5 acres. The density on site is proposed at 9.6 dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (d), the Draft EIR section includes an evaluation (Table 4.8.B of the Draft EIR) that shows how the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. According to Policy 2-2.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types that respond to the needs of residents of all age ranges and incomes and located in all areas of the City, the proposed Project was determined to be consistent with the policy. The Draft EIR states “The Specific Plan allows for up to 62 dwelling units at the edge of the City. The proposed Project includes a variety of dwelling units including single-family detached, attached for-sale townhomes, and apartments above a commercial space that may be for rent or for sale. This mix of housing types and densities within the development would provide residential dwelling opportunities at multiple price points that are oriented towards individuals at different life stages. Accessory dwelling units are permitted, which could add units that may be more affordable to certain economic groups.” No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment on the proposed Project density.
Please refer to Response to Comment 2-1 which discusses LOS for local roads under existing conditions and with proposed Project conditions.
The analysis in the Draft EIR is based on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed Project and provided in Appendix H-1. The Intersection of I-10 Ramps/Monte Vista is located within the City of Montclair (however, the ramps are under Caltrans District 7 jurisdiction), while the Intersection of I-210 Ramps/Baseline is located within the City of Claremont (however, the ramps are under Caltrans District 7 jurisdiction). Both Montclair and Claremont are located in Los Angeles County, where Congestion Management Program (CMP) from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAC MTA) applies. In CMP Appendix D, “Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis,” the CMP states that the TIA should analyze all monitored freeway on-ramps or off- ramps, where the proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either AM or PM weekday peak hours. According to the total Project trip assignment (Figure 5-6 in TIA), the proposed Project would not add 50 or more trips during a.m./p.m. Peak Hours at I-10 Ramps/Monte Vista and I-210 Ramps/Baseline. Hence, additional freeway ramp analysis is not required and is not included in the analysis in the TIA and Draft EIR.
The EIR adequately analyses potential impacts of the proposed Project and the cumulative Upland Project on traffic pursuant to CEQA requirements. The traffic analysis took into account all of the traffic that would be generated by the project in Upland and it is still within the legal thresholds of traffic volume. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
21 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
22 Letter 4 From: J Davis To: Lynn Hayes; Carl Winter; Chris Graham Cc: Brad Johnson Subject: Commons DEIR - incorrect latitude given in coordinates 2019110341 Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 5:17:55 PM
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Gayou, Nadell@DWR
Christine, the first part of the latitude in the coordinates should be 34o instead of 36o since the 2 degree difference points to a location many miles east of the actual project. I have cc'd 4-1 the lead agency contact to verify this correction
Nadell F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Letter 4: Nadell Gayou Response to Comment 4-1. The commenter is correcting the first part of the latitude coordinates that was provided to the State Clearinghouse in the City’s Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR.
The City thanks the commenter for her response. The comment does not affect the analysis or required any changes the findings in the Draft EIR; however, the Notice of Completion that was provided to the State Clearinghouse has been corrected to provide the correct latitude coordinate.
25 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
26 Letter 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 5: Marilynne Jensen Response to Comment 5-1. The commenter is opposed to the proposed Project and is concerned there is not enough room to “social distance” in the COVID-19 health outbreak or potential future health outbreaks.
The City acknowledges the commenters concerns. However, the comment does not relate to the analysis in the Draft EIR, and instead raises general City of Claremont policy considerations. The commenter’s statement on COVID-19 “social distancing” is speculative, as it assumes that social distancing requirements will continue indefinitely into the future and also does not address the validity of the analysis in the Draft EIR.
Your comment will be provided to the decision-makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 5-2. The commenter is concerned the proposed Project will cause noise, air pollution, and traffic.
The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed Project’s construction and operational effects on noise in Section 4.9, air quality in Section 4.1, and traffic in Section 4.10. The commenter has not raised any particular issue with the analysis in those sections.
The Draft EIR analysis determined the proposed Project’s construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the construction hours and days specified in the City of Claremont Municipal Code. Construction noise levels at the closest residence in the City of Claremont would not exceed the City’s exterior 15-minute, 10-minute, 5- minute, and anytime noise standard of 65, 70, 79, and 80 dBA, respectively; therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Noise levels generated by proposed on-site HVAC equipment would not exceed the City of Claremont’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards of 60 dBA and 55 dBA, respectively, for residential land uses. Noise levels would not exceed the City of Claremont’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards of 65 dBA and 60 dBA, respectively, for commercial and business park uses. All of the adjacent land uses to the proposed Project have intervening buildings that would provide a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA except for the adjacent commercial west of the proposed Project. As such, noise levels generated by on-site surface parking activities associated with the retail component of the proposed Project would not exceed the City of Claremont’s maximum daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA, respectively, for residential land uses. Noise levels would not exceed the City of Claremont’s maximum daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards of 80 dBA and 75 dBA, respectively, for commercial and business park uses.
The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed Project’s impacts on traffic in Section 4.10. Figure 4.10.1, Study Area Intersections, illustrates the locations of all study area intersections. Existing levels of service at study area intersections are identified in Table 4.10.A. All study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour times. Traffic conditions were examined for the weekday daily, a.m., and p.m. peak hour conditions. The a.m. peak
29 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
hour is defined as the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The p.m. peak hour is the one hour of highest traffic volumes occurring between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 1,089 vehicle trips per day, with 118 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour, and 88 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. When the proposed Project is added to the existing traffic the impact on the study area intersections is less than significant (refer to Draft EIR, Table 4.10.G) and all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS and no mitigation is required.
The Draft EIR evaluated air quality impacts generated by the proposed Project and determined that all emissions generated by the Project would be under threshold limits. As such, no mitigation measures were required and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Based on this comment no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response to Comment 5-3. The comment is the opinion of the commenter and does not require a response; however, as stated in Response to Comment 5-1, the comments will be provided to the City’s decision-makers for consideration prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 5-4. Your comments are acknowledged and will be provided to the City decision-makers prior to their action on the proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131) states “… Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effect on the environment.” The comment on the tax implications of the proposed Project is not a consideration under CEQA and is not required to be evaluated in the EIR.
30 Letter 6
Chris Graham
From: J Davis
From a different tribe than the one we got a response to when we sent out consultation notice. This tribe did not respond then.
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Gabrieleno Administration
Dear Jennifer Davis, Thank you for your letter dated April 27, 2020. This email is to inform you that our tribal government objects to the Mitigation measures Drafted here in this EIR . The proposed measures do not protect tribal cultural resources (TCR) under the law. As you 6-1 may know this area location is considered highly sensitive regardless of the prior ground disturbances of the past. Tribal cultural resources have been found in the area . The mitigation measures should be specific to TCR for purposes of complying with CEQA therefore we suggest you please utilize the mitigation measures we provided to you . If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=14677 https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=14627
1 2 3 4
-- Admin Specialist Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 Office: 844-390-0787 website: www.gabrielenoindians.org
The region where Gabrieleño culture thrived for more than eight centuries encompassed most of Los Angeles County, more than half of Orange County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It was the labor of the Gabrieleño who built the missions, ranchos and the pueblos of Los Angeles. They were trained in the trades, and they did the construction and maintenance, as well as the farming and managing of herds of livestock. “The Gabrieleño are the ones who did all this work, and they really are the foundation of the early economy of the Los Angeles area “ . “That’s a contribution that Los Angeles has not recognized--the fact that in its early decades, without the Gabrieleño, the community simply would not have survived.”
5 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
36 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 6: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Response to Comment 6-1. The commenter (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation or Tribe), states the following: tribal resources have been found in the area in the past; the area location is considered “highly sensitive”; and the Tribe’s objection to the mitigation measures should be included in the Draft EIR. The tribe further stated, when complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mitigation measures “ . . .should be specific” to tribal cultural resources. The tribe requested the City utilize the mitigation measures provided by the tribe and these mitigation measures have been included in the Draft EIR in Section 4.11 and reiterated in the table below.
Required tribal consultation was completed by the City in October 2018. During its consultation with the City, the tribe indicated the site’s proximity to traditional overland trade routes. These trade routes were utilized throughout the year to access foraging, trade and ceremonial areas. Seasonal and permanent ramadas, trade depots and habitation areas were located along these trade routes, especially those near water. The tribe identified the potential for individual and communal burials (including cremations) along established trade routes and habitations sites. Section 4.11 (Tribal Cultural Resources) of the Draft EIR provided an ethnographic context of the project area, a summary of consultation efforts, identified potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and developed mitigation to offset any potential impact to such resources.
Section 4.11.5.2 of the Draft EIR provides a definition of human consistent with the PRC §5097.98 (d)(1) as identified by the tribe. During the required consultation period, the tribe provided (January 30, 2019) input on recommended mitigation measures. As only one tribe responded to the City’s consultation invitation, use of the term “Tribe” in the mitigation measures refers to Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
As detailed below, the mitigation measures fully incorporate the intent and achieve an equal level of protection for any TCR that may be encountered during the course of ground disturbance activities.
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation
Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant 4.11.1A Retention of Tribal Monitor The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and Prior to the issuance of grading, the Project compensate for the services of a Tribal applicant shall provide evidence a Native American monitor/consultant who is both approved by the monitor has been retained and appropriately Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal compensated for construction monitoring Government and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal services. The monitor shall be approved by the Contact list for the area of the project location. This Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation list is provided by the NAHC. (Tribe) and shall be listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Tribal Contact list The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site for the area of the Project location. during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are The monitor shall be present on site only during defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- the construction phases that involve ground- Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, are defined as activities that include, but are not grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading,
37 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation
Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily excavation, drilling and trenching within the monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the Project area. The Kizh monitor shall complete daily day’s activities, including construction activities, monitoring logs that provide a description of the locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. day’s activities, including construction activities, The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site locations, soils, and any cultural materials grading and excavation activities are completed, or identified. The on-site Tribal monitoring shall end when the Tribal Representatives and when the Project site grading and excavation monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a activities area completed, or when the Kizh low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. representatives, in consultation with the City, have indicated that the site has a low potential for impact to Tribal Cultural Resources. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and 4.11.1B Unanticipated Discovery Archaeological Resources Upon discovery of any archaeological resource, Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the the find shall ceased until the find can be assessed. find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological All archaeological resources unearthed by the resources unearthed by project construction activities Project construction activities shall be evaluated shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and by a qualified archaeologist and the Tribe. If the tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleño resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources shall coordinate with the landowner regarding the are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of treatment and curation of these resources. Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the Typically, the Kizh request reburial or preservation landowner regarding treatment and curation of these for educational purpose. Work may continue on resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or other parts of the Project while evaluation occurs. preservation for educational purposes. Work may If a discovery is determined by the qualified continue on other parts of the project while archaeologist to be a “historical resource” or evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place “unique archaeological resources,” a treatment (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is plan shall be developed (pursuant to CEQA determined by the qualified archaeologist to Guidelines, Section 15064.5[f]) allowing for constitute a “historical resource” or “unique sufficient time and funding to identify and archaeological resource”, time allotment and funding implement avoidance measures and/or sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance appropriate mitigation. measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the For unique archaeological resources, preservation resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines in place is the preferred manner of treatment. If Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique data recovery extraction to remove the resource archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., along with subsequent laboratory processing and avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If analysis. Any historic archaeological material that preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may is not Native American in origin shall, at the include implementation of archaeological data discretion of the landowner, be curated at a public, recovery excavations to remove the resource along non-profit institution with a research interest with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. agreeing to accept in the materials. If no such Any historic archaeological material that is not Native institution agrees to accept the materials, they American in origin shall be curated at a public, non- profit institution with a research interest in the
38 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los shall be offered to a local school or historical Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an society in the area for educational purposes. institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Professional Standards: 4.11.1C Professional Standards Archaeological and Native American monitoring and Archaeological and Native American monitoring excavation during construction projects will be and excavation during construction shall be consistent with current professional standards. All consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, feasible care to avoid any unnecessary physical modification, or separation of human remains disturbance, physical modification, or separation and associated funerary objects shall be taken. of human remains and associated funerary objects Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Interior standards for archaeology and have a Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal have a minimum of ten years of experience as a investigator working with Native American principal investigator working with Native archaeological sites in southern California. The American archaeological sites in southern Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. 4.11.1D Inclusion of Mitigation in Project Plans
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Tribal Cultural Resource mitigation measure(s) identified in this EIR and the current contact information for the Tribe, Tribal monitor, qualified archaeologist, County Coroner(s) and Native American Heritage Commission are included in construction documentation and are readily available to the construction contractor(s) for the duration of on- site ground disturbance activities. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and 4.11.2A Human Remains Assessment and Associated Funerary Objects: Treatment. Native American human remains are defined in PRC Upon discovery of human remains, cremations, 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in and/or associated grave goods, the Tribal monitor any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. and/or archaeological monitor shall halt work Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC within a minimum of 150 feet of the discovery. The 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this discovery shall be kept confidential and secure to statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that prevent further disturbance. The Tribe and the any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of immediately reported to the County Coroner and any such discovery. Work within the 150 foot excavation halted until the coroner has determined buffer area shall be diverted while the County
39 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation
the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes Coroner determines the nature of the remains and the human remains to be those of a Native American the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) identified. or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within make recommendations or preferences for 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission treatment within 48 hours of being granted access (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. to the site. The MLD shall identify and direct the Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work most appropriate means of treating the human Protocol: remains and any associated funerary object(s). Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological Prior to the continuation of ground-disturbing monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately activities, the landowner shall arrange a divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an designated site within the footprint of the Project exclusion zone around the burial. The for the respectful reburial of the human remains monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the and/or funerary objects. In cases where discovered qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction human remains cannot be fully documented and manager who will call the coroner. recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner be moved by heavy equipment to protect the determines whether the remains are Native American. remains. If this type of protection is not available, The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to determined to be Native American, the coroner will recommend diverting the Project and keeping the notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). be diverted, it may be determined that burials Kizh-Gabrieleño Procedures for burials and funerary would be removed. The Tribal monitor shall work remains: closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by is designated MLD, the following treatment measures the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human includes at a minimum, detailed descriptive notes remains” encompasses more than human bones. In and sketches. Additional types of documentation ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions shall be approved by the Tribe/Tribal monitor for included, but were not limited to, the burial of data recovery purposes. funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by are to be treated in the same manner as bone means as necessary to ensure complete recovery fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary of all material. Each occurrence of human remains objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or and associated funerary objects shall be stored ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, have been placed with individual human remains funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of either at the time of death or later; other items made cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human container on site. These items shall be retained remains can also be considered as associated funerary and reburied within six months of recovery. The objects. site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project site but at a location agreed upon between the Treatment Measures Tribe monitor and the landowner at a site to be Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated
40 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation site location within the footprint of the project for the protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity respectful reburial of the human remains and/or regarding any cultural materials recovered. ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered If the discovery of human remains includes four or human remains cannot be fully documented and more burials, the location shall be considered a recovered on the same day, the remains will be cemetery, and a separate treatment plan shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be developed. Once complete, a final report of all moved by heavy equipment placed over the activities shall be submitted to the Tribe Nation excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type and the Native American Heritage Commission. of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will the utilization of invasive diagnostics on human make every effort to recommend diverting the project remains. and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that Kizh-Gabrieleño Procedures for Burials and burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely Funerary Remains. with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the If the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh excavation is treated carefully, ethically and Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the documentation shall be taken which includes at a term "human remains" encompasses more than minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Additional types of documentation shall be approved Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, will either be removed in bulk or by means as and the ceremonial burning of human remains. necessary to ensure completely recovery of all These remains are to be treated in the same material. If the discovery of human remains includes manner as bone fragments that remain intact. four or more burials, the location is considered a Associated funerary objects are objects that, as cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are created. Once complete, a final report of all activities reasonably believed to have been placed with is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The individual human remains either at the time of Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the death or later; other items made exclusively for utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human burial purposes or to contain human remains can remains. also be considered as associated funerary objects. Each occurrence of human remains and associated Treatment Measures. funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be activities, the land owner shall arrange a removed to a secure container on site if possible. designated site location within the footprint of the These items should be retained and reburied within six project for the respectful reburial of the human months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case shall be on the project site but at a location agreed where discovered human remains cannot be fully upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site documented and recovered on the same day, the to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no remains shall be covered "with muslin cloth and a publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the
41 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Recommended Tribal Mitigation Draft EIR Mitigation
remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials shall be removed. The Tribe "shall work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations "shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
The discussion detailed in the Draft EIR appropriately incorporates information provided by the tribe during consultation. The mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR substantially mirror the mitigation provided by the Tribe and fully and effectively mitigate any potential impacts to tribal cultural resource(s) that may occur during ground disturbance activities. The commenter has not identified any deficiency in the measures outlined above, or any new impact or an impact of increased severity that requires revision or recirculation of the Draft EIR.
42 Letter 7 Chris Graham
From: J Davis
Thank you for your comments, Ms Burson. And I will make sure these are forwarded to the environmental consultants for review and response.
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Carol Curtis
Ms. Davis,
As a nearby property owner I have concerns about the impact this development will have on many levels, particularly traffic and water usage. We are constantly being told by Edison and Golden State Water to conserve, yet we continually 7-1 allow densely populated housing complexes to be be built in our city. 62 dwelling units could easily add another 200 or more people living in Claremont.
The commercial area would add additional traffic and demand for resources. While stopping all development of vacant 7-2 land is not realistic, please encourage plans that provide as much open space and as little density as possible.
I am happy to see that the plan includes single-family detached units in addition to townhouses, however if their deign is similar to what we are seeing being built in the nearby Upland area, the single family homes have yards that are smaller 7-3 than most condos, so are equally dense to condominium developments.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carol Curtis Burson
1 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
44 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 7: Carol Curtis Burson Response to Comment 7-1. The commenter is concerned the proposed Project will add traffic in the area and increase water use.
The Draft EIR evaluated the proposed Project’s impacts on traffic in Section 4.10 which is based on the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared for the proposed Project and provided in Appendix H in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to Comments 2-1, and 3-1 above which indicate the proposed Project would have a short-term and long-term less than significant impact on traffic and no mitigation is required.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project determined the Project would have a less than significant impact on water supplies (refer to Appendix A in the Draft EIR). Water would be provided to the Project site by Golden State Water Company (GSWC). The projected water demand per capita within the Claremont System is projected at 328 gallons per day (gpd). The proposed Project is projected to use 53,136 gpd of potable water based on a projected population of 1621. The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Claremont demonstrates the reliability of water supplies to meet projected annual water demands for the Claremont System during a normal, a single dry year, and multiple dry years through 2040. Sufficient water supplies would be available to the proposed Project, and GWC does not require new water supply sources or resources to provide water to the proposed Project. Finally, the proposed Project would meet all City and state conservation requirements for water usage. Therefore, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact related to insufficient water supplies and no mitigation is required. Based on the information in this response, revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 7-2. The TIA for the proposed Project evaluated the traffic impacts of the entire Project including the commercial portion of the Project. According to Table 4.10.D in the Draft EIR the commercial portion of this proposed Project is forecasted to produce 372 daily vehicle trips. The proposed Project is forecast to generate a total of 1,089 daily trips 2. When the 1,089 daily trips were added to the existing and cumulative projects in the area, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on area roadways and intersections (refer to Table 4.10.G). Please also refer to Response to Comment 2-1. Based on the information in this response, revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 7-3. The commenter is concerned the proposed single family lots are too small to have adequate yard or open space.
According to The Commons Specific Plan (Appendix I of the Draft EIR), the minimum lot size is 2,500 square feet. The proposed Project also provides 0.8 acre of open space in the form of a Park Plaza and
1 The latest statistical figures published by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the City’s average household size assume 2.61 persons per housing unit for Claremont. Sixty-two dwelling units are proposed in Claremont so the proposed project could increase the City of Claremont’s population by approximately 162 persons. 2 For conservative analytical purposes, trips from the potential development of the adjacent cumulative project with 48 townhomes within the City of Upland adjacent to the east/southeast boundary are being consolidated with the Project trips since that project is expected to come on line at or near the same time as the Project and is immediately adjacent to the Project.
45 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Central Park that are both open to the public. According to the Specific Plan, the whole Project is designed around a large central park and is designed to create a pleasant, safe, and inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Common area landscaping, pedestrian paths, public art features, picnic areas, and public seating would be enhanced with surrounding street furnishings, lighting, and paving, as well as enhanced gathering spaces.
The 0.44 acre Park Plaza is located next to the Mixed-Use District and includes bike racks, benches, umbrellas, a water retention basin, and chairs for outdoor seating and dining. The design includes enhanced paving and colored concrete to differentiate this area from the sidewalk. Low fencing may also be included within this area to designate an area specifically for a tenant of the commercial area.
Although the single family lot sizes and the lack of open space do not address an environmental impact of the proposed Project, the comment will be provided to the City decision-makers in their consideration of the proposed Project.
46 Letter 8
8-1 8-1 Con 8-1 Cont. 8-1 Cont.
8-1 Con 8-1 Cont.
8-1 Con. 8-1 con. F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 8: County of Los Angeles Fire Department Response to Comment 8-1.The Los Angeles County Fire Department provided conditions of approval that are necessary to be implemented as part of the proposed Project.
The City of Claremont acknowledges the conditions of approval that the Los Angeles County Fire Department are requesting, and these measures will be implemented as part of the proposed Project. At plan check and prior to project entitlement approval, the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be able to conduct a final review to ensure that the measures are incorporated. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required based on the comments received from the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
53 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
54 Letter 9 Chris Graham
From: J Davis
Resident comment
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Jeralyn Klasik
RE: Draft EIR for The Commons To the Planning Commission and the City Council: This document is totally inadequate in its findings in at least three areas: 1) Goal 6‐3: In finding that the Project is consistent with Goal 6‐3 (Risk of Airport Accidents), it excuses the City from following the CALUPC because only the City of Upland has approved that document. In CALUPC, the Project is in Safety Zones 2 and 4 where residential uses are either to be avoided or to be limited. Evidently the City can also overrule the LACALUC. Therefore, the EIR declares this Project consistent here just because 9-1 the City has the power to say it is. It is safe because the City can declare it is safe. 2) Goal 6‐12: Noise Levels: In order to make the noise levels consistent, the EIR is forced to recommend an 9-2 amendment to the General Plan. 3) Affordable Housing: Both of the above are suggested because of Claremont’s need for housing. The EIR mentions the City’s RHNA several times. In particular, the use of SB 330 to increase the allowable noise level uses that point. However, the vision of SB 330 is to encourage affordable housing sites that supply many more 9-3 units than the paltry 6‐9 units in the Project. That does very little for our RHNA numbers. There are more compatible sites in Claremont that can (and should) be rezoned from commercial/office to residential for the purpose of expanding affordable housing. Please consider rejecting the proposed Project and reverting to Alternative 2. Jeralyn Klasik
1 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
56 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 9: Jeralyn Klasik Response to Comment 9-1. The commenter states the City is dismissing the Cable Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP) which has been approved by Upland and the fact that the proposed Project is located in Safety Zones 2 and 4 where residential units are either avoided of limited.
The commenter is correct in stating the City of Claremont is not implementing the CALUP because the City has not adopted the CALUP. In the absence of implementing the CALUP the Draft EIR has analyzed the proposed Project using the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. As stated in Section 4.6 Hazards, Subsection 4.6.5.1 Within Two Miles of a Private Airport or Within an Airport Land Use Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is not considered an infill project; as such, development of the residential units on the Project site would not be consistent or compatible with safety regulations of the 2011 Handbook. An approximately 0.15 acre portion of the Central Park would be located within Safety Zone 2 (a normally allowable use in this zone). The Project site would develop residential units, residential flats, and the majority of the Central Park within Safety Zone 4. The residential uses located in Safety Zone 4 are allowable on a limited basis if they are low density (below 1 dwelling unit per 2 to 5 gross acres). This portion of the Project site would have an estimated residential density of 22 dwelling units per 3.09 acres of land (7.1 dwelling units per 1 gross acre), which is greater than the low density standard of 1 dwelling per 2 to 5 gross acres. As such, development of the residential units on the Project site within Safety Zone 4 would not be consistent or compatible with safety regulations of the 2011 Handbook. However, per the 2011 Handbook, airport land use compatibility planning recognizes the objectives of the local municipal agency (in this case the City of Claremont) which has ultimate authority for land use planning and regulations. The proposed Project will be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (LACALUC) Commission in accordance with the 2011 Handbook. Approval of the proposed Project requires that the LACALUC find, based on substantial evidence in the record, that certain criteria are met. The City of Claremont will provide the LACALUC findings during the City Council Meeting as part of the entitlement record. As the proposed Project would adhere to the above outlined process, as presented in the 2011 Handbook, the processing steps are considered consistent with the 2011 Handbook. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 9-2. The commenter opines in order to the make the noise consistent, the EIR is forced to recommend an amendment to the General Plan.
The EIR is not forcing the General Plan amendment; the Draft EIR analyzed the impact of the General Plan amendment as a part of the proposed Project (refer to Section 3.0 Project Description, Subsection 3.4.2.1 General Plan Amendments). The Draft EIR states, “As currently drafted, the General Plan would prohibit development of the proposed residential uses of the site. To encourage the development of housing stock for all segments of the community, the proposed Project proposes an amendment to Footnote 3 of Table 6‐5 as follows (double underline text represents the proposed General Plan Amendment):
Regarding aircraft related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. However, in order to promote the development of housing urgently needed during the current California housing crisis and to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment RHNA,
57 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
residential uses located in mixed‐use developments where there is a mix of residential housing types including multi‐family housing, are allowed maximum noise level exposures up to 70 dB CNEL. (SB 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019, signed into law October 9, 2019).
Due to comments made by State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Letter 10), the General Plan amendment has been changed to the following in the errata section 3.0 of the Final EIR:
‘However, in order to promote the development of housing urgently needed during the current California housing crisis and to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment RHNA, residential uses located in mixed‐use developments where there is a mix of residential housing types including multi‐family housing, are allowed maximum noise level exposures up to 70 65 dB CNEL. (SB 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019, signed into law October 9, 2019).”
No further revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 9-3. The commenter is concerned the General Plan is being amended to meet the City’s need for housing to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations and the small number of units will not meet the housing need. The commenter also states there are other commercial sites that could be changed to allow residential units in the City; however, the commenter provides no potential alternative site.
The intent of SB 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019, signed into law October 9, 2019, is to provide housing to all income levels within the State not just low to moderate income housing by providing a mechanism to allow a jurisdiction the flexibility to approve housing. The Project proposes 27 single- family dwelling units, 20 townhomes and 15 residential flats. To help meet RHNA requirements, the proposed Project would include 10 units for moderate income residents and 7 units for low income residents. The proposed Project meets the City’s General Plan goal of “Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types that respond to the needs of residents of all age ranges and incomes. Provide opportunities throughout the City for adequate and affordable housing in a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community. (LU Goal 2‐2, H Goal 8‐3).” Further, the Project adds much needed housing units pursuant to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
58 STATE OF CALIFORNIA------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS – M.S. #40 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 Making Conservation SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 a California Way of Life. PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Letter 10
June 10, 2020
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Ms. Davis:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Commons, SCH# 2019110341
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, noise, and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public-use and special-use airports and heliports. The following comments are offered for your consideration.
The proposal is for a project known as The Commons. It would result in a planned residential and mixed-use development with 27 single-family homes, 20 townhomes, 15 residential flats, 5,000 square feet of ground level retail space and over an acre of park and open space on approximately 6.5 acres of vacant land in the City of Claremont (City). The project also includes a tentative tract map, as well as the processing of a specific plan and a general plan amendment. There is also a General Plan Text Amendment being proposed to the City’s Public Safety and Noise Element and a zoning district change.
The project site is approximately 2,000 feet southwest of Cable Airport’s Runway 6/24 along its extended centerline. Aircraft fly at altitudes below 1,000 feet over the project site as they approach or depart the runway at Cable Airport. The Commons project will be subjected to low-altitude aircraft overflight and subsequent airport-related noise and safety impacts.
Cable Airport is an active, public-use airport with approximately 220 based aircraft and 90,000 annual aircraft operations. It is listed in the current Federal
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” Ms. Davis June 10, 2020 Page 2
Aviation Administration National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems as a Regional/Reliever airport.
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21096, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of environmental documents for projects within airport land use compatibility plan boundaries or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of an airport. The Handbook is available on-line at: http://dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/alucp/AirportLandUsePlanning Handbook.pdf
The purpose of the Handbook is to provide guidance for conducting airport land use compatibility planning as required by Article 3.5 - Airport Land Use Commissions, in the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 21670 to 21679.5 (Article 3.5). Article 3.5 outlines the statutory requirements for Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) including the preparation of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Article 3.5 mandates that the Division prepare, update and publish the Handbook.
It is the intent of the State Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. When the Legislature established Article 3.5 in the PUC it found and declared that:
“It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.” And, “it is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identified and evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of The Commons (project) and, as required, the Handbook was utilized as a technical resource where the DEIR relates to airport-related safety hazards and noise problems.
DEIR, section 4.6 (Hazards) The potential impact analysis concluded that the project’s land use 10-1
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” Ms. Davis June 10, 2020 Page 3 compatibility with Cable Airport is not consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 and the Handbook, and would therefore have a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. The proposed density of dwelling units per acre was 10-1 calculated to be greater than the maximum densities published in the Cont. Handbook. The project’s new residential development on the site’s vacant land, in the identified Handbook safety zones, would create new safety hazards.
DEIR, section 4.8.5.2 a (Land Use Planning) The general plan consistency analysis in this section concluded that impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the City of Claremont General Plan, but only after approval of a text amendment is made to the general plan’s public safety and noise element. The text amendment is part of the proposed project. The text amendment would increase the acceptable level of aircraft noise exposure on new noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools and places of worship, from 60 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) to 70 dB CNEL. The general plan’s current level of acceptable aircraft noise exposure is 60 dB CNEL, which if not amended to the higher level, would make this project inconsistent with the General Plan.
The proposed text amendment itself is not consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5, or the Handbook guidance and would create a significant impact as it would create new noise problems. Allowing new residential development within the 65 dB CNEL contour is inconsistent with PUC 21670 (a)(1) and the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 6, Section 5000 et seq. (Noise Standards). PUC 21670 (a)(1) states that it is in the public interest “to promote 10-2 the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards…and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.” The Noise Standards, in part, state that the “standard for the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports is hereby established to be a community noise equivalent level of 65 dB” for the purposes of those regulations. However, for most airports in California, 65 dB CNEL is considered too high a noise level to be appropriate as a standard for land use compatibility planning. This is particularly the case for evaluating new development in the vicinity of the airport. The 60 dB CNEL, or even 55 dB CNEL, may be more suitable for new development around most airports.
DEIR, section 4.8.5.2 b (Land Use Planning) Analysis of the project in this section for consistency with the Handbook in lieu of a Los Angeles County ALUCP for Cable Airport, concluded that impacts would 10-3 be less than significant and consistent with the Handbook.
Since the Los Angeles County ALUC has not adopted an airport land use
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” Ms. Davis June 10, 2020 Page 4 compatibility plan for their jurisdiction within the airport influence area of Cable Airport, PUC section 21675.1(b) requires that the project be submitted to the ALUC for review and approval. Before the ALUC approves or disapproves the project it must give public notice in the same manner as the referring city. PUC section 21675.1(c) places conditions on the ALUC’s ability to approve the project. PUC sections 21675.1(d) and 21675.1(e) specify the requirements for an overrule process should the ALUC disapprove the project. PUC section 21675.2 10-3 lays out the statutory requirements should the ALUC fail to act to approve or Cont. disapprove the project.
The proposed project must fully adhere to all of the requirements of PUC sections 21675.1 and 21675.2 or it will not be consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 and the Handbook. Since the analysis for this section does not address compliance with all of the requirements in PUC sections 21675.1 and 21675.2 there is still potential for a significant environmental impact.
DEIR, section 4.9.7.3 (Noise and Vibration, Public/Private Airport Noise) The project proposes a change to the City’s general plan text in this section. The current text in the general plan sets a threshold for allowable aircraft noise that would make the project an incompatible land use near Cable airport. The proposed change to the general plan’s text would increase the noise threshold for residential development thereby turning it into a compatible land use which would also change its environmental impact to less than significant.
As stated in the comments above pertaining to, DEIR section 4.8.5.2 a (Land Use Planning), allowing new residential development within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour is inconsistent with PUC 21670 (a)(1) and the airport Noise Standards. PUC 21670 (a)(1) states that it is in the public interest “to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards…and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.” This is particularly the case for evaluating new development in the vicinity of an airport.
Amending the City’s general plan text does not change the standard by which noise sensitive land uses are designated compatible or incompatible within an 10-4 airport’s influence area. The basis for the text change does not cite that there have been changes to state noise statutes, regulations or guidance.
It must be noted here that the proposed general plan change is based on reasons unrelated to noise and airport land use compatibility. Instead, the DEIR states the general plan change is supported by state affordable housing needs policy and recently signed housing crisis legislation. The text change, therefore, 10-5 has the effect of enabling the very type of land use state law and the current general plan language is designed to prevent. That is, the DEIR states that the
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” Ms. Davis June 10, 2020 Page 5 text amendment is needed to promote new noise-sensitive residential housing development in areas of higher than allowable aircraft noise exposure.
The proposed general plan text amendment is not consistent with the purposes 10-5 of Article 3.5, the Noise Standards, and is not supported by the Handbook. It Cont. would have a significant environmental impact regarding aircraft noise for this project.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division with respect to airport- related noise, safety, and regional land use planning issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 654-6223, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
PHILIP CRIMMINS Aviation Environmental Specialist c: State Clearinghouse, Los Angeles County ALUC, City of Upland, Cable Airport
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
64 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 10: California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics
Response to Comment 10-1. The comment misstates the analysis contained in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. That Section does not state the proposed Project’s land use is “not consistent” with the purposes of Public Utilities Sections 21670-21679.5 [Article 3.5] or with California Airport Land Use Handbook [Handbook].
To the contrary, the Draft EIR outlines Article 3.5 and explains on page 4.6-16 that the proposed Project will be processed consistent with that Article. Regarding the Handbook and its treatment of hazards, it is discussed in detail on pages 4.6-11 through pages 4.6-16, and the conclusion is that, “[A]s the proposed Project will adhere to the above outlined process, as presented in the 2011 Handbook, the proposed Project would be consistent with this applicable airport planning document.”
The proposed Project is not inconsistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 relative to the compliance with the California Airport Noise Standards adopted pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21669. Those standards, which are adopted in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6 [Noise Standards] contain an express provision exemption for residences that are the subject of an avigation easement. (Noise Standards, § 5014.)
The comment correctly notes that the Draft EIR acknowledges that the densities of the proposed Project exceed those outlined in the Handbook. It does this on pages 4.6-15 to 4.6-16. It further notes that, “per the 2011 Handbook, airport land use compatibility planning recognizes the objectives of the local municipal agency (in this case City of Claremont) which has ultimate authority for land use planning and regulations.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16). It notes that the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review the proposed Project and comment on the density issue.
The commenter concludes that because the density of dwelling units per acre in the proposed Project exceeds that prescribed in the 2011 Handbook,1 the Project location would create new “safety hazards.” This relatively small increase in hazards was fully disclosed in the Draft EIR. As the comment correctly notes, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed Project does create safety hazards compared to the existing vacant condition of the property. As discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, an Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites (“ACTA Report”) was prepared for the proposed Project. The ACTA Report established that: (1) during a 25-year period ending in 2015, there were a total of 15 accidents during departure and arrival procedures at Cable Airport; (2) given the short, approximately 3,500 foot long runway, the type of small aircraft able to use it, and the flight path used by approximately 50 percent of departing aircraft which takes them south of the Project site, the potential for debris impact on the Project site is negligible, while already developed sites closer to the airport are of demonstrable probability of damage; and (3) that 98 percent of flights at Cable Airport occur during daylight hours, at a time when residents are typically working or at school. Nonetheless, after an extensive discussion of the ACTA Report, the Draft EIR conservatively concludes: “Although the probability of Project residents being severely injured or
1 Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq., identified by Caltrans as “Article 3.5,” does not independently limit the number of dwelling units per acre, but instead ascribes that duty to Airport Land Use Commissions (“ALUC”) in the development of Airport Land Use Plans (“ALUP”).
65 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
killed due to a Cable Airport accident is low, the probability is still greater than if the proposed Project was not developed on the specific site. As such, impacts pertaining to this threshold would be potentially significant with implementation of the proposed Project and mitigation measures would be needed to reduce such an impact.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-8.) The comment does not appear to take issue with this analysis or the conclusion.
The proposed Project includes development that would impose no greater risk than numerous surrounding developments of higher density and intensity, within the same or even more hazardous zones. These developments include, for example: (1) two 4-story residential dormitories at the edge of Zone 4; (2) an athletic field just south of the Project site planned for up to 100 persons per acre; and (3) heavy commercial development to the west which will be open during the day, when aircraft from Cable Airport are also operating, but residents are absent.
Response to Comment 10-2. The commenter states that the proposed General Plan Amendment increasing permissible noise levels from 60 dB CNEL to 70 dB CNEL in very limited settings is inconsistent with Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21669, et seq., and its implementing noise standards, 21 Cal. Code Regs. § 5000, et seq. Based upon the comments received, the City staff have determined to scale back the proposed General Plan Amendment so that the permitted maximum would be 65 dB CNEL, rather than 70 dB CNEL. That revision keeps the City’s policy fully in line with the relevant Public Utilities Code sections and the State Airport Noise Standards. The implementing regulations establish that the noise level acceptable to a reasonable person living the vicinity of an airport is 65 dB CNEL. (21 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 5006, 5012). Regarding the City’s original proposal to increase the maximum to 70 dB CNEL, it should be noted that the State Noise Standards authorize exceeding the 65 dB CNEL standard, when warranted by other circumstances and an avigation easement is obtained. Specifically, the Code states, in pertinent part: “[I]f a political subdivision conditions approval of a noise-sensitive project upon the grant of an avigation easement to the owner or operator of an airport, the avigation easement shall be required to be granted . . . prior to the issuance of the building permit . . .” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21669.5(b). Moreover, implementing regulation 21 Cal. Code Regs. § 5014 is even more explicit with respect to the definition of a use “incompatible” with the specified “noise impact boundary:” “(a) Residences, including but not limited to, detached, single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, high-rise apartments or condominiums, and mobile homes, UNLESS: (1) an avigation easement for airport noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor…” [Emphasis added]. In this case, the proposed Project’s proponent has committed to the City that the relevant avigation easement will be granted. Thus, even if the maximum were set at 70 dB CNEL, the commenter’s claim of “incompatibility” overlooks the conclusive exception for the grant of an avigation easement that renders the proposed Project per se “compatible.” However, based upon the comments received, the proposed General Plan Amendment will be revised to track the State Noise Standard.
Finally, the comment suggests that 65 dB CNEL should not even be the standard, but rather it should be 55-60 dB CNEL. However, the standard set by the State is 65 dB CNEL, not a lower 55 or 60 dB CNEL. (21 CCR § 5012.)
Response to Comment 10-3. The comment outlines the procedures in Public Utilities Code sections 21675.1 and 21675.2. The comment then correctly notes that the proposed Project must fully adhere
66 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
to all of the requirements therein or it will not be consistent with the purpose of Section 3.5 and the 2011 Handbook. The comment then suggests that the Draft EIR did not address compliance with “all requirements” of those two sections and that therefore “there is still potential for a significant impact.”
The comment does not identify what requirements of Public Utilities Code sections 21675.1 and 21675.2 have not been addressed or presumably would not be followed. CEQA does not require that a Draft EIR summarize applicable statutory provisions. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR did provide an overview of the ALUC’s review and of the procedures the City can follow to override the ALUC’s determination. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) The Draft EIR clearly indicated that the City will adhere to the statutory process. There is no justification to presume it will not. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment 10-4. The City acknowledges that the proposed General Plan Amendment does not change the State’s Airport Noise Standards. That is not the intent of the proposed Amendment. As explained in Response to Comment 10-2, the proposed General Plan Amendment is being scaled back to track the State Noise Standard as indicated in Section 3.0 Errata of this Final EIR.
Response to Comment 10-5. The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s reliance on the State of California’s “affordable housing policy and recently signed housing crisis legislation,” as support for the City’s proposed General Plan change, to deem housing within the 70 (since revised to 65) dB CNEL noise contour compatible, is unrelated to noise and airport compatibility. On its face, this is incorrect. The proposed Amendment is very much related to both noise and acceptable compatibility. California’s recent housing legislation is meant to have the effect of enabling a vast increase in housing units, and greatly expands the areas where such housing can be built. In fact, in enacting and amending Cal. Gov. Code § 65913.4, and more specifically, Cal. Gov. Code § 65598.5, the Housing Accountability Act, the legislature has demonstrated its firm intent to make the development of housing an over-arching priority. (See, e.g., AB 3194, amending Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, SB 330.) Notably, the legislation does not reference airports or airport safety zones as preclusive of the statutes’ salutary effects. In fact, Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 now provides that inconsistency with a zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety sufficient to preclude a housing project’s development. In addition, while the recent housing legislation has included provisions that it does not override certain environmental/resources protection laws, such as the California Coastal Act, it does not have the same type of carve-outs for the State Aeronautics Act. Thus, the City’s reliance on State Housing Law as a justification for General Plan Amendment is appropriate.
67 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
68 Letter 11 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR THE COMMONS From BOB GERECKE
IMPACT 2.7.5 POPULATION/HOUSING This development would displace homeless persons who inhabit portions of it. The extent of this displacement, and the 11-1 alternatives for the homeless displaced, should be evaluated.
IMPACT 2.7.7 RECREATION Impact on City recreation facilities should be evaluated, using the assumption that residents will avoid the on-site parks. 11-2 Because of physical danger and extreme noise and air pollution, residents are unlikely to use these park areas, especially not for more than a very short time.
SECTION 3.4.8 SUSTAINABILITY and elsewhere Don’t describe this project as walkable or cyclable. • The aircraft noise and exhaust discourages walking and bicycling within the boundaries of the project by making it physically uncomfortable. • The lack of residences fronting the streets around the project discourages walking and bicycling there by making it psychologically uncomfortable and perhaps unsafe, especially in low light conditions. 11-3 • In addition, most of the streets around the project contain heavy and fast traffic and do not provide safe enough space for bicyclists. • Essential retail such as a super market is not within walking distance. • Children will be especially at risk, since schools are not nearby and are not accessible by bus.
This is not transit-oriented or even transit-accessible development. Little bus service is nearby. The walk to the Montclair 11-4 Transit Center is too long. Vehicle miles will increase.
IMPACT 4.2.5.3 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS/WETLANDS A culvert carries water under Foothill Blvd on the site's south boundary not far west of Monte Vista. 11-5 • What water flow does this culvert carry, where does it come from, and where does it go? • What effect will the proposed development have on this culvert and on the water which it carries?
IMPACT 4.4 and 4.5 ENERGY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS and GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Address and mitigate the lack of these climate-friendly features in the proposal: • on-site NetZero energy and energy storage, • and no natural gas. Mitigations should 11-6 • take maximum advantage of tax credits, • better meet Claremont's evolving expectations regarding energy at new developments, • and minimize climate change.
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Quantify the economic effect on the City of a plane crash. • Although the odds of a plane crash are statistically low, one will eventually occur. • Because many planes turn south after taking off, a crash is likely to occur in a residential area as well as in the avigation easement. 11-7 • This will damage the reputation of Claremont’s City Council for placing residences in this location. • It will affect the City’s ability to obtain votes necessary to pass ballot measures and it may cause litigation. • It will affect sales and rental prices and property taxes in this development.
IMPACT 4.6.6 CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT Analyze the cumulative effect on adults, and especially on fetuses and children, of exposure to the exhaust fumes and particles from leaded aviation fuel, which is the type of fuel available at Cable Airport, especially with regard to: 11-8 • older planes which are housed at Cable and which emit more exhaust than more modern planes, • heavy weekend aircraft use when residents are most likely to be on site, • children who will need to play outdoors, • pregnant mothers who will have to go outdoors to access their autos and other resources, 11-8 Cont. • absence of indoor play space and community social space.
MEASURE 4.6.1A HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A notice similar to that for prospective buyers should be provided to prospective renters. Both should advise: • that X number of flights occur in an average week, • that the noise level is excessive during aircraft take-offs, 11-9 • that 20% of crashes occur within the area according to the airport land use plan, • that aircraft exhaust particles and fumes affect health and are especially toxic to fetuses and children, • that children will be in danger of these hazards if they play outdoors, especially in the linear park.
It should also contain a statement to be signed by the prospective buyer or renter: • acknowledging receipt of the notice, • agreeing not to participate in legal or political action to restrict the airport's operation, and 11-10 • holding everyone free of liability for any injuries or damages.
IMPACT 4.7.5.3 DRAINAGE PATTERN AND CAPACITY-RELATED IMPACTS 11-11 See comments above regarding impact 4.2.5.3 WATERS/WETLANDS.
IMPACT 4.8.5.2 CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS The Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CALUCP) should be treated as relevant and applicable. This item should identify conflicts with the Cable Airport plan and state its evidentiary role in the County hearing. • The stated threshold is: "Would the proposed Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?" The CALUCP was adopted for that purpose and meets the stated threshold. • The draft EIR admits that "As required by State law, the plan provides overarching guidance to affected local land use jurisdictions with regard to airport land use compatibility matters involving Cable Airport." It is applicable because of its factual and relevant content, regardless of which jurisdiction enacted it. 11- • Claremont's Housing Element on page 8-91 admits the relevance of the CALUCP by stating "Site #12 is within 12 Cable Airport’s Compatibility Zones B1 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone) and B2 (Inner Turning Zone) as shown in the 2015 Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Report. Pursuant to the report, all residential uses in these two zones are incompatible and should not be permitted under any normal circumstance." • Furthermore, state law requires that, if a County does not have a land use plan for a specific airport, land uses must be approved by the County's Airport Land Use Commission case-by-case. The Cable Airport plan will be evidence in the Los Angeles County hearing.
In addition, the inadequacy of the avigation easement should be explained and mitigated. • It applies to the park area only, not to the residential area south of it. • Yet maps (e.g., CALUCP Map 3A and Claremont General Plan Figure 6-7) show that many planes turn southward as soon as possible instead of remaining in line with the runway and the easement. 11-13
MEASURE 4.9.1B NOISE AND VIBRATION Revise this mitigation to address aircraft noise outside of residences and inside residences with windows open. • It's necessary to open windows periodically to freshen the air. • It's also necessary to go outside to access one's vehicle, to patronize the on-site businesses, to get exercise, to await a bus, and to walk to school or to a nearby business or park. 11- • In addition, the EIR elsewhere approvingly cites the existence of on-site parks, but they will be intolerable 14 without earplugs. • Particular attention must be paid to children, who are most in need of going outside for long periods of time and are most likely to have their hearing affected. • Mitigation should include indoor spaces for children to play and adults to socialize as a community.
Also address the combined effect of aircraft and street noise occurring simultaneously; see Impact 4.9.8 below.
Because many planes turn toward the area south of the avigation easement, noise mitigation is especially needed there. IMPACT4.9.7.3 PUBLIC/PRIVATE AIRPORT NOISE and POLICY 6-12.1 There should be real physical mitigation. Changing the rules is not an environmental mitigation. The noise isn't more 11-15 tolerable to human ears because of a rule-change. A rule-change does not change human physiology. See comments above on Measure 4.9.1B.
IMPACT 4.9.8 CUMULATIVE NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT Roadway and industrial noise should be analyzed in combination with aircraft noise, not only with one another. • Foothill Blvd is a busy street, with loud truck and bus traffic as well as cars. • Noisy diesel trucks serving the new warehouse on Foothill at Central will go up and down Monte Vista. • Monte Vista is already busy as it accesses both the 210 and the 10. 11-16 • Much of this noise will occur at the same time that aircraft are taking off from the runway.
IMPACT 4.10.5.4 INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS This matter requires further analysis. • Many of the buildings are accessible only via the interior streets, which are narrow with sharp turns. 11-17 • Long fire trucks will have difficult transiting them quickly and perhaps at all. • In addition, many buildings can be accessed only from the narrow streets along the linear park. If that park is the scene of a fire, possibly from a plane crash, which has spread to the cars parked there, it will be difficult for fire apparatus to approach and save nearby buildings.
SECTION 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The owner’s proposal and alternative #3 (lower-density housing) should be rejected. • Per Claremont’s Housing Element page 8-91, this Compatibility Zone (B1) is unsuitable for housing. 11-18 • Also, this parcel is surrounded by non-residential uses and arterial streets. • It borders no residential neighborhoods. • Residential development is and will look out of character with the area.
Alternatives #2 and #4 eliminate housing and are potentially compatible with the airport. Of the two, #2 is economically 11-19 preferable because it includes a substantial amount of sales-tax-producing retail.
No alternative with housing for families with children, and with less retail than fills the area south of the avigation 11-20 easement, should be acceptable.
Our City should not give up sales tax potential, especially not after having spent many thousand of dollars, and having 11-21 pleaded with residents, to pass a sales tax increase measure.
In case housing remains on the table, the following additional alternative should be offered: • North of the avigation easement, have transitional/supportive housing for homeless single persons. 11-22 • South of the avigation easement, have retail businesses with office space above.
These uses are allowed in the current zoning.
This alternative, despite having housing which should not be here at all, will have several advantages compared to other alternatives: • It will get homeless persons off of the streets and sheltered in a location without nearby residents who would otherwise fight any homeless housing or services in their neighborhood. • It will provide much more commercial area to generate sales tax revenue than the proposed paltry 5000 square 11-23 feet of retail. • Shoppers and employees will not be present 24/7 in the commercial area south of the easement and will not be spending much time outdoors; therefore they will be less exposed than residents would be to hazards caused by planes turning southward. • Because housing occupants will be temporary while transitioning to permanent housing, they will not be subjected to long-term harm from aircraft noise and pollution, and they will not hound the City and other authorities to restrict airport operations. • Because housing occupants will have been homeless, they will be (probably the only) persons for whom housing in this miserable and dangerous location will be an improvement in their living conditions. • Some homeless persons have been living on the northern portion of this property; they will be displaced under 11-23 any alternative, and transitional housing for them will compensate for that, while reducing their exposure to noise Cont. and air pollution. • All of the housing units will be low-income, thereby maximally assisting the City to comply with the portion of its RHNA allocation which faces the most resistance from developers and existing residents and which therefore is most lacking so far.
The downside is that it will be perceived and criticized as environmental injustice to put the poor in the worst possible location. But on the other hand, if the owner’s proposal or something similar is built, it will also be inhabited by people 11-24 who can’t afford to buy or rent anywhere more tolerable – unless they were misled about the conditions they would encounter.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Per California Public Utilities Code section 21670(a), a goal of the airport land use law is to “minimize the public’s 11-25 exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards". Converting this parcel from commercial to primarily residential use does the opposite: by lengthening individual exposure to crashes and to the cumulative effects of noise and exhaust, it increases the likelihood of harm to them.
Excluding application of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan because it was enacted by another jurisdiction, 11-26 and recommending an increase in the allowable noise level because this is allowed by a State law, do not address the physical environment, which EIRs are intended to address. They minimize mitigation.
The content of the proposed Specific Plan and of its EIR represents developer-driven, rather than City-driven, planning. Our Council members expressed a strong preference for City-driven planning during their May 14, 2020, meeting on 11-27 Village South. The best alternative is what best meets the needs and interests of the City, not the property owner/developer.
City staff failed to widely publicize the comment period. Although notices were sent to specific organizations and persons, the EIR was not publicized in the City Manager’s Weekly Update, on the City website home page or via the social media which the City has used for general information: Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor. This has no doubt 11-28 eliminated some comments which would otherwise have been made. F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 11: Bob Gerecke Response to Comment 11-1. The commenter indicates that the proposed Project would displace homeless persons who inhabit the site, and requests that alternatives for homeless displaced should be evaluated.
The Project site is a privately owned parcel that is currently vacant. Field visits to the Project site occurred on October 10, 2018, October 25, 2019, and most recently on June 30, 2020. During the 2018 and 2019 site visitations, staff noted that the Project site was vacant and no homeless encampments were located on the Project site. A recent site visit to the Project site (June 30, 2020) revealed that some homeless encampments were on the Project site in the vicinity of the northern Project site boundary. The City of Claremont Human Services Department has been able to secure grant funding for the implementation of the 2018 Homeless Services Plan. Currently the City of Claremont has two beds at the Hope for Home Shelter and a Homeless Services Navigator who can work with these individuals to get them into the continuum of care and on the road to permanent housing. The City of Claremont also has other resources to assist the City’s unsheltered population including, the nonprofit Claremont Homeless Advocacy Program and Housing Claremont. If homeless encampments are found to be on the Project site prior to commencement of construction activities, the City of Claremont would be available to assist in providing resources that would allow for the homeless population on the site to find the proper resources to move them towards housing. No further response is needed based on this comment and revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-2. The commenter indicates that impacts on City recreation facilities should be evaluated with the assumption that onsite recreation facilities would not be used due to what the commenter contends as physical danger, extreme noise, and air pollution.
Section 2.7.7 of the Draft EIR analyzes recreational resources and concludes that impacts to the City’s recreational facilities would not be impacted by the proposed Project and no further discussion in the EIR is warranted. The proposed Project includes development of two different park areas within its boundary that would provide amenities to residents in accordance with City of Claremont requirements for a Mixed Use Zone overlaid by a Specific Plan (see Table 16.040.3 of Claremont Municipal Code Chapter 16.040.080 Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Development). Furthermore, CEQA does not require that speculation be made that onsite outdoor recreational facilities would not be used when developed as part of the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the City’s population by 162 residents. If all of the 162 residents used off-site park and recreational facilities, the amount of persons using these facilities would be nominal and would not be enough to result in an impact to off-site facilities in accordance with CEQA thresholds. Finally, the Project applicant would pay in lieu fees in accordance with the Quimby Act in conjunction with development of the on-site park and recreational facilities. The Draft EIR adequately analyses potential impacts to off-site park and recreational facilities pursuant to CEQA requirements. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-3. The commenter provides a bulleted list as to why the proposed Project should not be described as walkable or cyclable. A response to each bulleted list comment has been provided below based on the comment.
73 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
The commenter indicates that aircraft noise and exhaust would discourage walking and bicycling within the Project boundaries as it would be physically uncomfortable for residents to partake in such activities.
The commenter is speculating and providing an opinion without any analytical information to confirm his claim. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis technical report and Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis technical report were prepared for the proposed Project and are referenced in the EIR. Moreover, In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (December 17, 2015) (Case No. S213478) (CBIA v. BAAQMD), the California Supreme Court held that CEQA generally applies to a project’s impact on the environment, not the environment’s impact on the project. In other words, the California Supreme Court held that “CEQA does not generally require a lead agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions (for example municipal airport as an existing off-site emission source for aircraft operations, not-project related emissions) on a proposed project’s future users or residents.”) Existing air quality concerns will more appropriately be addressed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) outside of CEQA process for a single project. As part of the development of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the aircraft emissions inventory for the SCAQMD was evaluated and updated. Specifically, an updated aircraft emissions inventory was developed for the 2012 base year and 2040 forecast year based on the latest available activity data and calculation methodologies. Based on the information from the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, the Cable Airport would generate the following criteria pollutant emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, with or without the proposed Project:
Table 1: Aircraft Emissions by Airport (tons per year) VOC CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Cable Airport 2012 7.07 260.62 3.23 0.66 5.46 4.22 Cable Airport 2040 7.32 259.50 3.35 0.69 5.46 4.25 Source: Draft Aircraft Emission Inventory for the 2016 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, August 2016.
As shown in the Table 1, the aircraft emissions from the Cable Airport operations would remain at a relatively steady emission level between 2012 and 2040. Therefore, the existing aircraft emissions at Cable Airport would not change the existing background air quality levels due to the proposed Project. Relying on CEQA (Pub. Res. Code) § 21083 and other relevant provisions—in particular, CEQA’s definition of “environment”—the Court in CBIA v. BAAQMD held that “CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. Based on this, the commenter’s claim that aircraft exhaust would discourage residents from walking and bicycling in the proposed Project area is unfounded. The added text does not constitute a significant change in the analysis in the Draft EIR. Long-term and short-term noise measurements were taken on the Project site to determine existing ambient noise levels in the Project area (refer to the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR). These noise measurements were inclusive of Cable Airport operational noise and aircraft overflights. The ambient noise level in the Project area ranged from 60.1 to 72.6 dBA CNEL. According to the City of Claremont General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element the Project site is exposed to Cable Airport operational noise ranging between 60 to 65 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 4.9.D in
74 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Section 4.9 Noise of the Draft EIR: Claremont Land Use/Noise Guidelines of the EIR, Active Open Space and Passive Open Space (these guidelines are being used to determine resident noise exposure during active outdoor activities such as walking and bicycling) maximum noise levels range between 65 to 70 dBA CNEL. Existing ambient noise levels in the Project area would occasionally exceed these limits by 2.6 dBA CNEL; however, audible increases in noise level generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. Furthermore, as discussed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis technical report under heading “Physiological Effects of Noise” physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
The commenter indicates that lack of residences fronting the streets around the Project site discourages walking and bicycling by making it psychologically uncomfortable and unsafe, especially in low light conditions.
Review of the Project site plan indicates that residential units would front Foothill Boulevard and Andrew Drive. The design of the proposed Project would include internal sidewalks for residents to walk on. Sidewalks will be installed along Foothill Boulevard in Claremont south of the Project site and a bicycle lane will also be provided along Foothill Boulevard in Claremont. The City of Claremont will include the following condition of approval to ensure that such improvements are implemented by the Project applicant: “The applicant shall be responsible for constructing public improvements along Foothill Boulevard to match the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan cross section approved for this area. This shall include the entire Foothill Boulevard frontage of the subject property and extend to the center lines of both of Monte Vista Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, contingent on obtaining the necessary permits from the City of Upland. Right of way dedications maybe necessary to accommodate required improvements.” Based on this information, facilities are located in the area to allow Project residents to walk and bicycle. Additionally, the proposed Project would include design features that would accommodate both walking and bicycle facilities. Furthermore, the proposed Project would include lighting elements that are consistent with City of Claremont Municipal Code requirements. For these reasons, the EIR has adequately addressed this commenter concern and no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.
The commenter indicates that most of the streets around the proposed Project contain heavy and fast traffic precluding safe enough space for bicyclists.
The proposed Project will include improvements to the sidewalk system and bicycle lane system along Foothill Boulevard along the length the Project fronts the street. These improvements would be consistent of those required in the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan that was approved by the City of Claremont. The proposed Project in itself will contribute to improving the Foothill Boulevard corridor by improving features that promote safe walking and bicycling for Claremont residents. The City of Claremont will include the following condition of approval to ensure that such improvements are implemented by the Project applicant: “The applicant shall be responsible for constructing public improvements along Foothill Boulevard to match the Foothill Boulevard Master Plan cross section approved for this area. This shall include the right-of-way up to Monte Vista: up to the center lines of both of Monte Vista Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and contingent on obtaining the necessary
75 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
permits from the City of Upland. Right of way dedications maybe necessary to accommodate required improvements.” Based on this information no revisions are warranted for the Draft EIR.
The commenter indicates that retail such as a supermarket is not within walking distance of the Project site.
A Trader Joe’s is located at 475 West Foothill Boulevard approximately 1.18 miles west of the Project site and a Walmart is located at 1450 West Foothill Boulevard 1.24 miles east of the Project site. The commenter is correct that these are not likely walking destinations for Project residents. However, this comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
The commenter indicates that children will be especially at risk as schools are not nearby and are not accessible by bus.
The Children’s School at Claremont McKenna College is located 654 E 6th Street in Claremont is approximately 0.65 mile south of the Project site; Sycamore Elementary School located at 225 W 8th Street in Claremont is located approximately 1.29 miles southwest of the Project site; and, Claremont High School located at 1601 N Indian Hill Boulevard in Claremont is located approximately 1.37 miles northwest of the Project site. The Claremont Unified School District provides bus transportation to their schools for students with special needs. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-4. The commenter indicates that the proposed Project is not transit- oriented or transit-accessible as little bus service is nearby, the walk to Montclair Transit Center is too long, and vehicle miles will increase.
Bus service is considered transit oriented. The Montclair Transit Center is 0.99 mile southeast of the Project site. This facility, as described in Section 4.10.1 of the Draft EIR, provides access to five OmniTrans bus lines, seven Foothill Transit bus lines, one Riverside Transit Agency bus line, and Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line. Foothill Transit also operates bus routes near the Project site, specifically, Bus Line 292 has a stop just west of Foothill Boulevard and Claremont Boulevard, approximately 0.1 mile from the Project site. Based on this information, transit-oriented, transit- accessible, and bus service is in close proximity of the Project site. In addition, the City is launching, in 2020, a bike share program that will include pedal assist electric bikes docked around the City for use as First Mile Last Mile connections to transit facilities that are outside the walkable ¼ to ½ mile radius of transit rich areas such as the Montclair Transit Center and the Claremont Transit Center.
Section 4.10.5.2 of the Draft EIR provides analysis regarding the potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact due to Project implementation. The Draft EIR concludes that the VMT of the proposed Project would be 23 percent higher than the Regional VMT and would also be 8 percent higher than the 15 percent threshold as suggested by the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2019). The proposed Project would incorporate design features to reduce VMT; however, conclusions indicated that the design features would not reduce the VMT impact below suggested thresholds. Furthermore, the Draft EIR suggested mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce VMT impacts associated with the proposed Project; however, conclusions indicated that the
76 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
applicant nor the City could guarantee implementation of the mitigation measures. The Draft EIR therefore found that impacts pertaining to VMT would be significant and unavoidable. The City decision-makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) that weigh the impact of VMT with the benefits of developing the proposed Project. The SOC must be adopted prior to City action to approve the proposed Project. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-5. The commenter notes that a culvert carries water under Foothill Boulevard on the site’s south boundary and requests information as to where the water flow goes, where it comes from, the water flow capacity of the culvert, and what effect the proposed Project would have on the culvert and the water it carries.
The existing drainage patterns flow via box culvert underneath Foothill Boulevard from the Project site to the south onto privately owned property. This box culvert facility may not be needed post construction because storm drain and associated devices would collect and infiltrate stormwater onsite as required by the MS4 mandate. Per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Comment Letter (Comment Letter 15), the CDFW based its determination of the “likely” nature of the on-site drainages on a review of aerial and site photographs. The evaluation of the drainages identified in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was based not only on review of aerial imagery, but also on field observations, conversation with the Project engineer regarding past and current flow patterns on site, as well as review of the proposed Project’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The Drainage Report (Appendix F-1 of the Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed Project indicates that the box culvert beneath Foothill Boulevard would have capacity available to convey the site runoff once the proposed Project is development. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-6. The commenter requests the EIR address and mitigate for on-site NetZero energy and energy storage and no natural gas. The commenter suggestions various mitigation measures to be implemented including taking maximum advantage of tax credits, better meeting Claremont’s evolving expectations regarding energy at new developments, and minimize climate change.
The proposed Project, through Regulatory Compliance Measure RCM-EN-2 as described in Section 4.4.5.1 (Energy) of the Draft EIR, would implement design features in order for the proposed Project to be developed toward meeting a goal of reaching zero net energy. Section 5.7 of the Specific Plan (Appendix I of the Draft EIR) outlines potential design features that would be implemented in the proposed Project to be consistent with California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11. With each three-year cycle of the California Regulations Title 24, the regulations are updated with the goal of reaching zero net energy in new residential construction by 2022 (effective January 1, 2023) and zero net energy in new commercial construction by 2030. All new development within the Specific Plan area is required to meet the Title 24 standards. Since the concept of sustainability is still evolving, it is anticipated that new sustainable strategies will be continually developed during the build-out period of the Specific Plan. All development within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the California Title 24 standards in effect at the time building permits are issued, the City of Claremont’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and Sustainable City Plan, whichever is most stringent. In addition to meeting these standards, this Specific Plan will require all buildings to be equivalent to a LEED certified
77 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
design. Both Title 24 and LEED include a menu-list of requirements. Neither LEED nor Title 24 require every efficiency item to be implemented. A certain threshold needs to be met and the developer has the option to choose which items to implement that meet the specified threshold. Based on LEED and Title 24 requirements the Project applicant is not required to look at no natural gas consumption and taking maximum advantage of tax credits if other design features are being implemented to approach zero net energy usage. Based on this information, the Draft EIR adequately addresses energy consumption to approach zero net energy usage. As such revisions to the Draft EIR are not warranted based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-7. The commenter requests quantification of the economic effect on the City of a potential plane crash. The commenter provides his opinion that the odds of a plane crash are low but will eventually occur as many planes turn south after taking off. The commenter also indicates that the damage of a plane crash would damage Claremont’s City Council reputation for locating residences in the area. The commenter also provides his opinion that a crash would affect the City’s ability to obtain votes necessary to pass ballot measures and it may cause litigation as well as affect sales and rental prices and property taxes in the Project site.
The quantification of economic effects on the City due to aircraft crashes is not required in the Draft EIR as it is not an environmental effect and need not be addressed in CEQA analysis. (CEQA Guideline 15131.) See also California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (December 17, 2015) (Case No. S213478) (CBIA v. BAAQMD), in which the California Supreme Court held that CEQA generally applies to a project’s impact on the environment, not the environment’s impact on the project. Based on these authorities, a speculative economic effect on the City of a plane crash on the Project site is not warranted in the Draft EIR.
See Response to Comment 2-1 for information pertaining to Cable Airport operations and the risks to the Project site.
It should be noted that the commenters’ concerns about potential plane accidents damaging the City Council’s reputation, the City’s ability to obtain votes necessary to pass ballot measures, exposure to litigation, and impact on tax revenues are not CEQA related issues. As such, analysis pertaining to these topics are not required in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 11-8. The commenter requests that analysis of cumulative effects on adults, fetuses, and children from exposure to exhaust fumes and particles from leaded aviation fuel from Cable Airport be conducted.
Please refer to Response to Comment 11-3.
Response to Comments 11-9 and 11-10. The commenter requests that a notice similar to that for prospective buyers be provided to prospective renters with the following advisories included: the average number of flights occurring in a week; noise level is excessive during airport operations; 20 percent of crashes occur within the area; aircraft and exhaust particles and fumes affect adult, fetus and children’s health; danger to children playing outdoors; acknowledging receipt of the notice; agreeing not to participate in legal/political action to restrict Cable airport’s operation; and, holding everyone free of liability for any injuries or damages.
78 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Mitigation Measure 4.6.1A in Section 4.6 Hazards of the Draft EIR requires the Project applicant to prepare and provide to the City of Claremont a copy of an Airport Proximity Disclosure that would be presented to prospective buyers of real estate within the Project site. This Airport Proximity Disclosure would be recorded on the property deed and therefore remains in effect with the sale of the property to subsequent owners. In addition, as a condition of approval, notice to renters will be required in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of the HOA established on the Project site. The CC&Rs would include a clause requiring that home owners provide the Airport Proximity Disclosure to renters. Mitigation Measure 4.6.1A has been developed based on Exhibit H-2 Sample Deed Notice in Appendix H of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and Appendix E Sample Implementation Documents “Buyer Awareness Measures” and “Overflight Notification” found in the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.6.1A fulfills the notification requirements for prospective buyers and future renters of residential units on the site as set forth in both the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment received.
Response to Comment 11-11. The commenter refers to comments above pertaining to Impact 4.2.5.3 Waters/Wetlands.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11-5 above.
Response to Comment 11-12. The commenter suggests the CALUCP should be treated as relevant and applicable and that Impact 4.8.5.2 in the Draft EIR should identify conflicts with the Cable Airport plan and state its role in the County hearing based on the following considerations
The stated threshold requires that the CALCUP be evaluated as it meets the stated CEQA threshold pertaining to Impact 4.8.5.2.
The CALUCP is applicable because of its factual and relevant content, regardless of which jurisdiction enacted it.
The threshold the commenter references, pursuant to Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines, states “Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?” However, the CEQA Guidelines made it clear that such consistency analysis is to focus “applicable” regulations. CEQA Guideline 15125(d). The proposed Project is located in Los Angeles County and the Cable Airport is located in San Bernardino County. The City of Claremont has not adopted the CALUCP. The CALUCP was approved by the City of Upland to promote compatibility between Cable Airport and the land uses that surround it in the City of Upland. The County of Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission (LACALUC) has jurisdiction of all airports within the County of Los Angeles; however, they do not have jurisdiction of airports outside of Los Angeles County (i.e., Cable Airport located in San Bernardino County). In a letter received by the City of Claremont from the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (December 17, 2019) on the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), the LACALUC confirmed that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Cable Airport has not been prepared or adopted by LACALUC and in lieu, the EIR should be analyzed using the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011 Handbook). As the Lead Agency (City of Claremont) has not adopted the CALUCP and the LACALUC has not adopted or approved the CALUCP either. The 2011 Handbook has been
79 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
appropriately used throughout the analysis of the Draft EIR as required by LACALUC. Based on this, the CALUCP is not an applicable document to be used as a reference for analysis in the Draft EIR for this particular threshold of significance. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted based on this comment.
Claremont’s Housing Element on page 8-91 considers the relevance of the CALUCP by indicating that Site #12 is within Cable Airport’s Compatibility Zones B1 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone) and B2 (Inner Turning Zone) and all residential uses in these two zones are incompatible and should not be permitted under any normal circumstances.
The City of Claremont acknowledges the decision made on Site #12 as described on page 8-91 of Claremont Housing Element. The Project site is not located on Site #12. Moreover, the statements referenced relating to Site #12 were in the context of its suitability for a 30-units/acre project. The proposed development has a much lower density. Further, the reference to the two zones as not permitting residential development “under any normal circumstance” is not an independent conclusion from the City, but instead is a description of the language of the CALUCP. Even the CALUCP, under Criterion 3.1.6, recognizes that there will be exceptions. It identifies “Special Conditions Exceptions”, which can be found that would allow normally incompatible uses to be compatible. As such, the CALUCP does not outright deny the development of residential units within Compatibility Zones B1 and B2 as limited exceptions are possible for site-specific special circumstances as discussed under Criterion 3.1.6 of the CALUCP.
Moreover, as outlined in the Draft EIR, Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis (AIRA) was prepared for the proposed Project to analyze the potential for an aircraft accident that could result in casualties to persons residing on the Project site. The potential for an accident causing a casualty on the Project site was determined by estimating the likelihood of an accident occurring, and, given such an event, estimating the likelihood of injury to a resident. Accident rates were developed using annual operations data and the historical record of accidents in the vicinity of Cable Airport. The AIRA considered 5 similar sites and the Project site in the risk analysis. The AIRA concluded that the annual maximum risk of a severe injury or casualty to an occupant of the Project site due to an airplane accident from Cable Airport is equivalent to 27 chances in 1 million (as documented under Impact 4.6.5.1 of Section 4.6 in the Draft EIR). The EIR concludes that a crash occurring on the site and causing injury or casualty presents the lowest odds compared to the other 5 sites analyzed in the AIRA. To further reduce the potential for severe injury or casualty on the site, the Project applicant has designed a 150‐foot wide swath of land, devoid of buildings and tall vegetation (i.e., residential buildings, retail/commercial buildings, tall trees, etc.) as a feature that lines up with the Cable Airport Runway 6/24. Even though the EIR determined the risk of Cable Airport aircraft crashes generating injury or death to occupants of the Project site is considered low, Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A, 4.6.1B, and 4.6.1C would be implemented to reduce hazard impacts pursuant CEQA. However, the EIR acknowledges that even with these mitigation measures implemented, chance of an injury/death causing aircraft accident occurring on the Project site would be greater compared to the existing vacant conditions of the Project site. As such, the EIR determined hazard impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Overriding Considerations that weigh the impact of Cable Airport aircraft crashes on the site with the benefits of developing the proposed Project will be considered by the City’s decision-makers when they take action on the Project.
80 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
The Cable Airport Plan would be used as evidence in the Los Angeles County hearing for Project approval by the County’s Airport Land Use Commission.
Your comments are acknowledged and will be provided to the City decision-makers prior to their action on the proposed Project. The comment is not relevant to the analysis or changes the findings in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 11-13. The commenter requests that the inadequacy of the avigation easement should be explained and mitigated as it applies to the park area only and not to the residential areas south of it, even though CALUCP Map 3A and General Plan Figure 6-7 show planes turn southward as soon as possible instead of remaining in line with the runaway and easement.
The commenter is not accurate in describing the avigation easement as only applying to the park area within the Project site that aligns with Cable Airport’s Runway 6/24. This area is in fact a design feature that is part of the proposed Project, void of buildings, tall vegetation, and tall infrastructure, which would accommodate an emergency landing in the event that a Cable Aircraft landing/departure were to fail. This area on the Project site (as discussed in under the subheading California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in Section 4.6 Hazards of the Draft EIR) would be approximately 150-feet in width with the Central Park, Linear Park, Central Plaza, and parking lot occupying this area on the site. This design feature is similar to the design of the business park parcel to the east of the Project site beyond Monte Vista Avenue. This specific parcel includes a swath of land that lines with Runway 6/24 and is void of tall structures and buildings. Section 3.3.4 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR discusses the avigation easement that was established on the Project site on June 19, 1997. The avigation easement established on the Project site is inclusive of the entire Project site and not just the 150-foot wide area inside the Project site that would be designed to accommodate a Cable Airport Plane crash if one were to occur. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C in Section 4.6 (Hazards) of the Draft EIR would be implemented to ensure that a new recorded and deed restricted avigation easement is established on the Project site. Based on the information and analysis present in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 11-14. The commenter requests that Mitigation Measure 4.9.1B be revised to address aircraft noise outside of residential units and inside of residential units with windows open. The commenter also requests that combined effect of aircraft and street noise occurring simultaneously be addressed in the EIR. Finally, the commenter indicates that noise mitigation is needed toward the area south of the avigation easement due to planes turning toward that area.
Please refer to Draft EIR, Section 4.9 Noise, Subsection 4.9.7.3, under subheading “Public Airport Noise”. This section discusses the outdoor ambient noise levels that onsite residents would be exposed to due to Cable Airport operation generated noise. The basic California guidance sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level generated by an airport that is normally compatible with urban residential land uses. However, the current Claremont General Plan indicates that the maximum acceptable exposure from aircraft‐related noise for new residential development is 60 dBA CNEL. The proposed Project originally included a General Plan Text Amendment that would revise the maximum
81 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
acceptable exposure from aircraft related noise for new residential development from 60 dBA CNEL to 70 dBA CNEL. As explained elsewhere in the Response to Comments and in the Final EIR, City staff is recommending that the proposed Amendment be scaled back so that the maximum exposure is 65 dBA CNEL. This is consistent with the State Noise Standard. The proposed Project is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of Cable Airport; as such, the EIR determined that outdoor residential areas on the Project site would be exposed to noise levels from Cable Airport that would not exceed the exterior threshold standards that would be updated through the General Plan Text Amendment.
Residential onsite interior noise analysis was also conducted in the Draft EIR and was determined to be above threshold units. The interior noise analysis included airport noise generated by Cable Airport and roadway noise. The Draft EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9.1A and 4.9.1B which would require all residential units to have HVAC units to reduce the amount of windows being opened by residents on the site and preparation of a Final Acoustic Report. The Final Acoustic Report would analyze interior noise levels of onsite residential units based on ambient noise levels in the area (a combination of common urban noise, airport noise, and roadway noise) and would suggest design features (i.e. double pained windows) to be implemented to ensure that interior noise levels are below the 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise standard of Claremont and no greater than 40 dBA CNEL from noise generated by Cable Airport operations. The analysis presented in the Draft EIR had been condition pursuant to acceptable protocols; as such, no revisions to the EIR are warranted.
The commenter is incorrect in describing the onsite avigation easement (please refer to Response to Comment 11-13). The onsite avigation easement covers the entire site as described in Section 3.3.4 of the Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure 4.6.1C. The proposed Project is not responsible for mitigating noise impacts generated by Cable Airport operations on property not within the Project site south of the avigation easement. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-15. The commenter indicates there should be real physical mitigation and that changing a rule is not an environmental mitigation (in reference to Impact 4.9.7.3 Public/Private Airport Noise and Policy 6-12.1). The commenter indicates that noise is not more tolerable to human hearing due to a rule-change and does not change human physiology.
As noted above, the proposed rule change – the General Plan Amendment – has been scaled back and is now in line with State Noise Standards (refer to Section 3.0 Errata in this Final EIR). The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comments 11-3 and 11-14 above. These responses fulfill the response to this comment and the EIR does not need to be revised based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-16. The commenter requests that roadway and industrial noise should be analyzed with aircraft noise under Impact 4.9.8 Cumulative Noise and Vibration in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR. The commenter references that Foothill Boulevard is busy with loud truck, bus, and car traffic; trucks traveling along Monte Vista to access warehouse uses on Foothill Boulevard at Central; Monte Vista is busy with vehicles accessing Interstates 210 and 10; and, the commenter indicates that aircraft noise would occur simultaneously.
82 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a) and 15355 defines a cumulative impact as one that “consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” Furthermore, the proposed Project is not generating industrial noise or aircraft noise as the Project is a mixed-used residential/commercial use Specific Plan; as such, such noise generation would not be included in a cumulative analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a) and 15355. Subsections 4.9.7.1 and 4.9.7.3 of Section 4.9 Noise of the Draft EIR analyze the potential impacts to the proposed Project from noise generated by typical urban activities, surrounding roadways (i.e., Foothill Boulevard and Monte Vista) and airport noise operations. These sections also analyze the potential impacts Project noise generation would have on surrounding sensitive receptors (i.e., Project trip generation on surrounding roadways potentially increase roadway noise, onsite HVAC operation, onsite parking, and internal circulation noise generation). Tables 4.9.M and 4.9.N in Section 4.9 Noise of the Draft EIR presents noise levels of surrounding roadways under existing conditions, future conditions, and both of these conditions with the Project implemented. The base ADT volumes of the roads presented in Tables 4.9.M and 4.9.N include a mix of vehicles that include trucks, cars, and motorcycles. Table 4.9.O in Section 4.9 of the EIR analyses the potential impacts to onsite sensitive receptors (once the proposed Project is operational) based on noise generated by aircraft, existing ambient noise levels, and roadway noise levels surrounding the Project site. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR as described herein, the EIR is adequate and does not require revisions based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-17. The commenter indicates that Impact 4.10.5.4 Inadequate Emergency Access in the Draft EIR needs further analysis based on the commenter’s following opinions: buildings are accessible only via interior narrow streets with sharp turns; long fire trucks would have difficulty accessing quickly and at all; and, onsite buildings can be accessed only from narrow streets along the linear park and may not be accessible at all if the linear park is the scene of a fire.
As shown on the Project plans, the internal roadway system and driveway access system would be designed to comply with City of Claremont Municipal Code requirements and Los Angeles County Fire Department standards. Section 4.10.5.4 of the Draft EIR indicates all on‐site roadways, driveways, and parking spaces would comply with Section 16.136.040, Design Standards for Driveways and Parking Spaces, in the City of Claremont’s Municipal Code, and Section 18.56.130, Vehicle Access and Parking Requirements. All Project access driveways are ungated and therefore would not potentially obstruct or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Additionally, all Project driveways would comply with minimum dimension and clearance standards as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department would be included in the Final Plan Check of the proposed Project to determine if the Project is compliant with all applicable fire codes. Furthermore, please refer to Comment Letter 8 from the Los Angeles County Fire Department indicating it has reviewed the preliminary Project plans and has provided access requirements that are to be implemented by the proposed Project in order to be compliant with emergency access needs. These measures would be incorporated into the Project design as conditions of approval in order to comply with adequate emergency access requirements of the fire code. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR as described herein, the Draft EIR is adequate and does not require revisions based on this comment.
83 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Comment 11-18. The commenter (pertaining to Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR) provides his opinion that the proposed Project and Alternative 3 should be rejected for various reasons provided in the bullets below. A response to the bulleted list has been provided below based on the comment.
Per Claremont’s Housing Element Page 8-91, this Compatibility Zone (B1) is unsuitable for housing. Please refer to Response to Comment 11-12. This parcel is surrounded by non-residential uses and arterial streets; it borders no residential neighborhoods; and, residential development is and will look out of character with the area. The commenter is incorrect in this observation. The Project site is bordered by non-residential uses; however, a residential neighborhood is located approximately 500 feet to the northwest of the Project site and another residential neighborhood is located approximately 760 feet southeast of the Project site. As such, both the proposed Project and Alternative #3 would implement a residential development in an area where existing residential uses exist. As described in Section 2.7.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be developed in accordance with the land use and development standards contained in the Specific Plan resulting in planned and orderly residential master planned community. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be presented to the City of Claremont’s Architectural Commission to ensure that development policies and the character of the Project site are consistent with City of Claremont’s architectural requirements. Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIR as described herein, the EIR is adequate and does not require revisions based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-19. The commenter states that Alternatives #2 and #4 eliminate housing and are potentially compatible with Cable Airport and states that Alternative #2 is economically preferable because it includes sales-tax-producing retail.
The commenter is stating his opinion and preference of Alternatives for the proposed Project without providing substantial evidence that Alternatives #2 or #4 are the preferred alternative. The comments will be provided to the decision-makers for their consideration. For these reasons, the EIR does not need to be revised to include economic analysis on Alternative #2.
Response to Comment 11-20. The commenter states that no alternative with housing for families with children and with less retail that fills the area south of the avigation easement, should be acceptable.
As discussed above in Response to Comment 11-13, the avigation easement is applicable to the entire Project site. Based on this comment, the commenter is advocating for an alternative south of the avigation easement to not include residential uses but include more retail uses. The area south of the avigation easement does not include the Project site. Instead, it would include Foothill Boulevard and the approved East Campus Sports Park, both of which are not owned or in control of the Project applicant. As such, implementation of an alternative to the proposed Project south of the avigation easement would not be feasible. For these reasons, the EIR does not need to be revised based on this comment.
84 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Comment 11-21. The commenter states that the City should not give up sales tax potential after spending money to advocate to pass a sales tax increase measure.
This comment is an opinion of the commenter and has no bearing on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. It will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration. For this reason, the EIR does not need to be revised based on this comment.
Response to Comments 11-22 and 11-23. The commenter advocates for an additional alternative to be analyzed in the EIR. The commenter indicates that the additional alternative should include transitional/supportive housing for homeless single persons north of the avigation easement and retail businesses with office space above south of the avigation easement. The commenter also provides a bulleted list of advantages the additional alternative would have compared to the other alternatives.
As stated above, the avigation easement covers the entire Project site. Section 6.1 of the Project EIR discusses the CEQA requirements for developing and analyzing alternatives to the proposed Project. An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In compliance with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)); an EIR must describe “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the project even if “these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)). The discussion of project alternatives must “include sufficient information about each [alternative] (to) allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” The City of Claremont, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. The range of alternatives addressed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Of the alternatives considered, the EIR needs to examine in detail only those the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. “Feasible” has been defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364)”
Please refer to Response to Comments 11-13 and 11-20. The avigation easement the commenter references is applicable to the entire Project site and not just the 150-foot wide area of land within the Project site void of buildings, tall vegetation, or other tall structures. The Project applicant does not own land north or south of the Project site with the avigation easement; as such, such an alternative advocated by the commenter would not be feasible. Furthermore, as the Lead Agency, the City of Claremont’s primary objective is the development of the site with uses that are consistent with the policies and development guidelines established by the City General Plan. These policies and development guidelines that the proposed Project would be subject to are included in Subsection 3.5 in Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. In order to promote primary objectives of ensuring a cohesive,
85 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
attractive, and unique development, the proposed Specific Plan identifies the following “Guiding Principles” to provide a broad framework and direction for the site plan and building design:
Provide a community that meets current and future housing demands on a highly accessible site located near major roads. Ensure compatibility with neighboring existing commercial areas, and with future institutional, and residential uses. Create a walkable environment and a definable sense of place. Create special places such as a large open space spine and central plaza. Provide for infill residential development on a vacant property. Emphasize distinct features of site and surroundings to create a unique, mixed‐use neighborhood. Provide diversity in product mix design to target a variety of age groups.
The alternative that the commenter recommends be included in the Draft EIR does not meet these guiding principles nor does it meet the primary objectives as set forth by the City of Claremont. For these reasons, the inclusion of the commenter’s alternative is not required to be in the Draft EIR and revisions to the EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 11-24. The commenter indicates the alternative of transitional/supportive housing for homeless would be perceived and criticized as environmental injustice to develop in the worst possible location. The commenter states that, if developed, the proposed Project would be inhabited by residents who can’t afford to buy or rent anywhere more tolerable, unless they were misled about the conditions they would encounter.
This is the commenter’s opinion and has no bearing on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For these reasons, the inclusion of the commenter’s alternative is not required to be in the Draft EIR and revisions to the EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 11-25. The commenter contends that the proposed Project does the opposite of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a), a goal of the airport land use laws that minimizes the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazard. The commenter claims that converting the site from commercial to residential lengthens individual exposure to crashes, noise, and exhaust.
Please see Response to Comment 10-1 through 10-5. For the reasons stated in those responses, revisions to the EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 11-26. The commenter states that excluding application of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan because it was enacted by another jurisdiction and recommending an increase in the allowable noise level does not address the physical environment which EIRs are intended to address.
86 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
The proposed Project is located in Los Angeles County and Cable Airport is located in San Bernardino County. The City of Claremont has not adopted the CALUCP and the CALUCP was approved by the City of Upland to promote compatibility between Cable Airport and the land uses that surround it in the City of Upland. The County of Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission (LACALUC) has jurisdiction of all airports within the County of Los Angeles; however, they do not have jurisdiction of airports outside of Los Angeles County (i.e., Cable Airport located in San Bernardino County). In a letter received by the City of Claremont from the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (December 17, 2019) on the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), the LACALUC confirmed that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Cable Airport has not been prepared or adopted by LACALUC and in lieu, the EIR should be analyzed using the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011 Handbook). The EIR, specifically in Sections 4.6 Hazards 4.8 Land Use, and 4.9 Noise use the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook per the requirement made by LACALUC. For these reasons, the use of the 2011 Handbook in lieu of the CALUCP (which had not been approved or adopted by the LACALUC) is appropriate document to use in supporting the conclusions in the Draft EIR. Pertaining to noise generated by Cable Airport and its potential effects on Project site residents, Please refer to Response to Comments 11-3 and 11-14 above. The EIR does not need to be revised based on this comment.
Response to Comment 11-27. The commenter states the Specific Plan and EIR represents developer- driven rather than City-driven planning. The commenter also advocates that the best alternative is what best meets the needs and interests of the City, not the property owner/developer.
Your comments are acknowledged and will be provided to the City decision-makers prior to their action on the proposed Project. The comment is not relevant to the analysis or changes the findings in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 11-28. The commenter opines that City staff failed to widely publicize the comment period and failed to include publication on the City Manager’s Weekly Update, on the City website home page, Facebook, Twitter and the Nextdoor Application.
The Notice of Availability (NOA was published and sent out via U.S. Mail and email to interested parties and residents and businesses surrounding the proposed Project (beyond the 300-foot radius required by CEQA), all interested agencies, all those who attended the community meeting and left their contact details, and approximately 50 additional interested public. All told, almost 200 people were notified of the proposed Project. The NOA was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office from April 30, 2020 to June 01, 2020. The Draft EIR was also available on the City of Claremont’s Website (https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/government/departments-divisions/planning- division/ceqa-documents) for the duration of the public review period from Wednesday April 29, 2020 through Monday June 15, 2020, a 45 day period as required by California Public Resources Code 21091. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a) notice of the Draft EIR for public review shall be given by at least one of the following procedures: (1) Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among newspapers of general circulation in those areas. (2) Posting of notice by the public agency on and off site in the area where the project is located or (3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants
87 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. Owners of such property shall be identified as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The City of Claremont fulfilled this CEQA requirement of noticing based on the information disclosed above. Additionally, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(b) the lead agency has the discretion to provide additional notification by other means if such agency so desires As such, the City had the discretion to choose which vehicle of public notice be used to notify the community of the proposed Project pursuant to these CEQA guidelines. The public notification for the Draft EIR was adequate per City of Claremont and CEQA requirements. The comment is not relevant to the analysis or changes the findings in the Draft EIR.
88 Letter 12
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
June 15, 2020
Jennifer Davis, Contract Planner City of Claremont 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMMONS PROJECT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR for The Commons development project to be located in the City of Claremont. Staff of the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has reviewed the DEIR document and has the following comments:
Pages 2-6 and 4.6-16 of the DEIR is correct in stating that in the absence of an airport land use compatibility plan for the Los Angeles County portion of the Airport Influence Area for Cable Airport in the City of Upland, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (2011), as published by the California Department of Transportation would be used for the analysis, as stated in Public Resources Code Section . The DEIR utilized the State Handbook in analyzing the impacts of noise, safety, and land use compatibility between the airport and the project site.
Page 2-10 misidentifies California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as Cable Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
According to page 4.6-2 of the DEIR, the DEIR found that the project site would be within the 60 dBA CNEL of Cable Airport. According to the DEIR, the State Handbook identifies the project site as being within Safety Zones 2 and 4, and the State Handbook strongly discourages residential development in Safety Zone 2 and allows low-density residential 12-1 (defined as one dwelling unit per two to five acres) in Safety Zone 4, regardless of the CNEL contour. The project proposes a density of 7.1 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with the State Handbook. The DEIR is correct in stating this inconsistency on pages 4.6-15 and 16. However, the fact that there is no Airport Land Use Plan for this area on the Los Angeles County side of the airport’s Airport Influence Area does not make it consistent with the State Handbook, as claimed on page 4.6-16.
According to pages 1-38, 3-28 and 4.8-19, the DEIR makes the finding that a General Plan text amendment to its Noise Element to raise the acceptable noise thresholds for residential projects from 60 to 70 dBA CNEL to address a severe housing shortage will make the Project 12-2 consistent with the city’s General Plan, and concludes that this will make the noise impacts
320 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone (213) 974-6409 or TDD (213) 617-2292 http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc
June 11, 2020 Page 2 OF 2
less than significant. This finding is inconsistent for several reasons: 1. It does not change the fact that this proposed text amendment is inconsistent with the State Aeronautics Act, regardless of whether there is a local Airport Land Use Plan in place or not. 2. The noise standards were established to protect residents from significant noise exposure and annoyance by aircrafts taking off and landing nearby. Raising the CNEL standard does not change the need for protection of residents from these noise sources. 3. Recent State housing laws have not made any exemptions to or carve outs within the State 12-2 Aeronautics Act to allow housing near airports to address a severe housing shortage or to Cont. fulfill RHNA obligations. As it stands, all housing projects still must comply with the State Aeronautics Act which addresses noise and safety as public health issues, while ensuring airports remain functionally operational. 4. Amending a plan by revising a standard to make an otherwise incompatible land use compatible with the plan to accommodate a specific project does not make for good planning practice.
It is uncertain whether raising the CNEL contour standard for residential uses to 70 dBA is even necessary, as suggested on page 4.9-31. We recommend revising the language in the 12-3 General Plan text amendment to 65 dBA CNEL to be consistent with the State Handbook.
The DEIR proposes as mitigation measures to offer sound insulation to guarantee an interior sound level of 45 dBA CNEL or better, require avigation easement of the property to the airport, and to require disclosure to potential buyers of real estate within the vicinity of airports, which comply with the State Handbook, however, as California Department of Transportation, 12-4 Division of Aeronautics stated in its letter dated December 16, 2019, these measures alone are not a substitute for good airport land use compatibility planning for new residential development.
Based on the Alternatives in the DEIR, we recommend considering Alternative 2 (No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning, which still allows for commercial and office projects) or Alternative 4 (Business Park) as the more acceptable options for the project site from an 12-5 airport land use compatibility perspective, while maintaining all other mitigation measures, such as sound insulation, object clearance zones, and avigation easements.
If you have any questions, please email Alyson Stewart of my staff at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Bruce Durbin, Supervising Regional Planner Ordinance Studies/ALUC Staff
BD:as F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 12: County of Los Angeles, Airport Land Use Commission
Response to Comment 12-1. The comment references page 4.6-2 of the Draft EIR, and concludes that the Project site would be within the 60 dBA CNEL of the Cable Airport. More accurately, the Draft EIR references the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and states: “According to the CALUCP, under existing conditions, the proposed Project site is located in the 55 to 60 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of Cable Airport. The CALUCP also depicts that the proposed Project would be in the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of Cable Airport under year 2030 conditions.” The next two sentences in the comment accurately describe the proposed Project and the Draft EIR analysis. However, the comment is incorrect in stating that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the handbook. As noted in the Draft EIR, “However, per the 2011 Handbook, airport land use compatibility planning recognizes the objectives of the local municipal agency (in this case City of Claremont) which has ultimate authority for land use planning and regulations.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) The Draft EIR then goes on to explain that the proposed Project would be processed in accordance with the Handbook, including allowing the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Planning Commission (“LACALUPC”) the opportunity to review the proposed Project and weigh in on the proposed Project including its density. The comment suggests that the Draft EIR relies upon the absence of an Airport Land Use Plan to establish consistency with the Handbook. That misstates the Draft EIR analysis. In fact, the Draft EIR, after pointing out where the proposed Project deviates from the recommendations of the handbook, indicates that the Project will in fact be processed in accordance with the Handbook review process, allowing for multiple layers of review of this issue. It concludes: “the proposed Project would be consistent with this applicable airport planning document.” In addition, as described in Response to Comment 10-2 and Comment 12-3 below, the City is proposing to bring the General Plan Amendment in line with the State Noise Standard.
Response to Comment 12-2. Regarding the commenter’s point 1, the proposed General Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the State Aeronautics Act for the reasons stated in Response to Comment 10-2. The City does not dispute the accuracy of the statement made by the commenter in point 2. Instead, the City must decide what an acceptable range of exterior housing noise is, given all factors, including the housing crisis. Moreover, given the avigation easement and required noise disclosures, future occupants of the proposed residences will be able to weigh the pros and cons of the location. Further, as stated above, the City is proposing to scale back the General Plan Amendment so that it aligns with the State Noise Standard (refer to Section 3.0 Errata of this Final EIR). Finally, CEQA requires analysis of how a proposed Project impacts the environment, rather than the reverse. It is only where the proposed project has the effect of exacerbating effects of an existing hazard or condition that analysis is required. (California Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgnt. Dist (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 389.) Regarding the commenter’s point 3, see Response to Comment 10-5. In addition, while the recent housing legislation has included provisions that it does not override certain environmental/resources protection laws, such as the California Coastal Act, it does not have the same type of carve-outs for the State Aeronautics Act. The Commenter’s point 4 is a statement of the Commenter’s opinion on policy issues. However, the Amendment will now be in line with the State Noise Standard, which defines what it considered compatible. (21 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 5006, 5012) The comment will be transmitted to the decision-makers for consideration.
91 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Response to Comment 12-3. The City concurs with this comment. As recommended, the City is proposing to limit the amendment to 65 dB CNEL to be consistent with the State Handbook and State Noise Guideline (refer to Section 3.0 Errata in this Final EIR).
Response to Comment 12-4. The mitigation proposed for the noise assumed to be created by Cable Airport, i.e., sound insulation down to 45 dB interior noise levels is fully compliant with the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 12, Section 1207.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, and thus, appropriate as a mitigation measure here. The avigation easement and disclosures are designed to make sure future residents that move to the area are fully aware of the Cable Airport operation and to protect those operations into the future. Given the State mandate to develop housing and the significant number of new housing units being required of Claremont in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, the provision of housing, even if in areas that are not previously considered for housing, also needs to be accounted for in the compatibility planning for new residential development. The Commenter’s opinions regarding this issue will be considered by the decision-making body.
Response to Comment 12-5. The Commenter’s opinions regarding the alternatives to the proposed Project outline in the Draft EIR will be provided to the decision-making body.
92 Letter 13
13-1 13-1 Cont.
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7 13-7 Cont.
13-8
13-9
13-10
13-11 13-12
13-13 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 13: City of Upland, California
Response to Comments 13-1 through 13-4. These comments reflect the City of Upland’s stated position that the proposed Project is improperly “piecemealed” from a possible future development of 48 multifamily dwelling units contemplated by the Applicant on 3.0 acres of land located in the City of Upland, immediately adjacent to the Project site. The Draft EIR recognizes that the development in Upland is a reasonably foreseeable future project. Accordingly, the Draft EIR considers the change in the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed Project in combination with this reasonably foreseeable future development in the City of Upland as a cumulative impact, consistent with Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. Indeed, for purposes of traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, the Project analysis directly accounted for the potential impacts of this reasonably foreseeable future project due to the close proximity of the cumulative impacts. Thus, and although the Applicant has applied for SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval for the potential Upland development, these cumulative impacts are addressed in the Draft EIR. Moreover, as indicated in the proposed Project (Draft EIR Section 1.2) and Project Description (Draft EIR Section 3.0), the Project is a stand-alone project that does not require the approval of any future project, such as the proposed development in Upland, in order to occur. The existence of the proposed Project is not contingent upon the implementation of future development in the City of Upland.
Comment 13-1’s contention that entitlement to SB 35 approval for development on the 3.0 acres located in Upland “would only heighten the danger of piecemealing in this instance” is not well founded. As a matter of statewide policy, the Legislature has adopted Government Code Section 65913.4 which provides, among other things, that a housing project that is entitled to streamlined ministerial approval “shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public resources Code). . . .” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4(c)(2).) This exemption is noted in the Draft EIR at Section 1.2, page 1-1. The Draft EIR considers the cumulative impacts of the potential future development in Upland, consistent with section 15355 of the CEQA guidelines.
Contrary to the statements in Comments 13-2 and 13-3, the Draft EIR does not “ignore” or “omit” the potential Upland development from its analysis. Rather, as noted above, the Draft EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts discloses and examines the potential impacts the proposed Project may have in combination with the potential future development in Upland.
Comment 13-4 states that the Draft EIR “improperly omits any discussion of the City of Upland’s role as a responsible agency.” A “responsible agency” is defined by Public Resources Code section 21069 as “a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Here, the proposed Project is located within the City of Claremont, and is subject to that City’s land use jurisdiction. The City of Upland is not a responsible agency because it has no responsibility for carrying out or approving the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 13-5. Comment 13-5 states that the City of Upland has “determined as a matter of law that development of the Project within Upland does not qualify for SB 35 review. . . .” Even assuming for purposes of argument this statement were true, and recognizing that the Applicant disputes the City of Upland’s contention, then the development in Upland would be subject to environmental review with the City of Upland acting as the lead agency. Such further environmental
97 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
review is outside the scope of the Draft EIR because it relates to a possible future development in a neighboring land use jurisdiction. See the above responses to Comments 13-1 through 13-4 for further discussion on the nature and scope of the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 13-6. Comment 13-6 states that if the Draft EIR is not revised to include the potential future development in the City of Upland, then the City of Upland would not be able to rely on the Draft EIR for its environmental review of such future development. Whether the Draft EIR or Final EIR for the proposed Project could be used by the City of Upland in reviewing future development on the 3.0 acres of the Applicant’s property in Upland is a matter to be determined by the City of Upland acting as the lead agency, in the event it determines environmental review is necessary for such future development. The City of Claremont has no jurisdiction over the 3.0 acres of the Applicant’s property in the City of Upland, and discretionary review or approval of development within the City of Upland is outside the scope of the Draft EIR. See the above responses to Comments 13-1 through 13-4 for further responses on the nature and scope of the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 13-7. Comment 13-7 states that the Draft EIR presents multiple possible projects. The City of Upland is again referred to Sections 1.2 and 3.0 of the Draft EIR, as well as the above responses to Comments 13-1 through 13-4. Contrary to the statements in this comment, the Draft EIR describes a single project, with a single buildout scheme and a single description of the residential and retail uses that will be developed on the Project site, which rests entirely within the City of Claremont. This proposed Project, and only this Project, is the subject of environmental review and discretionary approval by the City of Claremont. The City of Upland has no jurisdiction over the Project site. This comment further states that the proposed Project and the possible future development in Upland are “tied together to some extent by potentially shared transportation infrastructure.” The Draft EIR discloses and analyzes the cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including the potential Upland development, in Section 4.10 and the Traffic Impact Analysis contained in Appendix E.
Response to Comment 13-8. This comment claims that the Draft EIR fails to comply with Section 15123(b)(3) by not addressing the issues to be resolved. The comment is incorrect. As suggested by the referenced Section, the Executive Summary contains Section 1.3, entitled “ISSUES ADDRESSED AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY TO BE RESOLVED.” That section spans from page 1-3 to 1-17. It includes a detailed summary of the areas of controversy and areas/topics that needed to be resolved based on the comments that had been provided on the Notice of Preparation. These included the noise and safety issues arising from the operation of the Cable Airport and the proposed uses compatibility with that airport. The comment includes four enumerated questions that the commenter purportedly believes should have been posed in Section 1.3. The first two and the fourth questions are not the type of questions that should have been included in the Section. Instead, these are questions that will be addressed when the decision-making body considers the EIR. The third question – compatibility of the proposed land uses with the character of the area was in fact identified as an issue to be resolved. See pages 1-8, 1-9, and 1-11. Moreover, omission of all or part of the Executive Summary, even if that had occurred, does not affect the validity of an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21061, last sentence.)
Response to Comment 13-9. Comment 13-9 states that the Draft EIR should “fully consider Cable Airport in the environmental factors analysis.” The commenter is referred to Sections 4.6. 4.8 and 4.9
98 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
of the Draft EIR and Appendices E-2 (ACTA, Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites) and G (Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis), which contain discussion and analysis regarding the relationship between the proposed Project and Cable Airport. In addition, this comment further states that aircraft fly at an altitude of “around 1,000 feet over the project site as they either approach or depart Cable Airport.” In addition, Appendix J-1 through J-5 include additional information about the Cable Airport discussed in the Draft EIR. This comment is incorrect with respect to arrivals, as only 10 percent of aircraft landing at cable airport utilize Runway 6. The remaining 90 percent utilize Runway 24, which requires an approach to the airport from the northeast. The likelihood of impact from all operations at the airport is discussed at length in Appendix E-2 and found to be approximately 27 chances in 1 million. Cable Airport noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR and Appendix G.
Response to Comment 13-10. The commenter has concerns that the proposed Project’s nearby location could have a detrimental effect on future traffic flows on nearby Upland streets and intersections. The commenter has several concerns with the adequacy of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed Project by LSA, dated October 2019. The commenter believes that the land use determination underestimates the amount of project trips, the project description lacks operational details, and trip-distribution assumptions for vehicles using Monte Vista Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the City of Upland, is unrealistic.
The Project trip generation is derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition. The land uses in the Project trip generation is consistent with Project description and conceptual site plan. Since this is a mixed-use project, internal capture is required to provide a more accurate estimation of project trip generation. Internal capture rates have been calculated using the Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool developed by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 8-51). Since the proposed Project has retail uses, pass-by trips have been considered using pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The trip distribution is based on the regional roadway network and the locations of residential, employment, and commercial centers in relation to the proposed Project. Because the proposed Project has two different land uses, separate trip distributions were developed for residential and retail uses. When determining the trip distribution, the regional roadway network (access to freeway ramps, major arterials, etc.), existing geometry constraint such as raised median, and the location of residential and retail uses in the proposed Project with relevance to the nearest access points have all been taken into consideration. Section 1.1 of the TIA has included land uses and access points for this Project. Section 5.1 and 5.2 of the TIA has included explanation of the methodology for project trip generation and trip distribution. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment received.
Response to Comment 13-11. The commenter states if the traffic modeling is not realistic, other technical studies in the document, including air quality impacts are also underestimated. The commenter request their comments to be reviewed and requests detailed responses to each comment at least two weeks prior to presenting this proposed Project to the Claremont Planning Commission and City Council.
The traffic modeling is realistic as explained in the Response to Comment 13-10. Therefore, other technical studies in the document are realistic, and are consistent with the traffic study. Please see
99 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
the response above regarding the explanation of project trip generation and trip distribution. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment received.
Response to Comment 13-12. The commenter states that the Draft EIR specifies that Driveway 4 is an egress point along Monte Vista Avenue which would allow travel to the south to Foothill Boulevard and I-10 approximately 2 miles south of the Project site. The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR needs to describe and analyze this access point as a major entry into and from the Project site onto Monte Vista Avenue into the City. The commenter also requests that the Draft EIR needs to describe what street improvements are necessary to accommodate this access point as a major entry into the Project site.
According to the Project trip distribution, Driveway 4 would allow vehicles to exit from the Project site to travel to the south of Foothill Boulevard and I-10 ramps along Monte Vista Ave. Due to the existing raised median at the intersection of Monte Vista Ave/Driveway 4, inbound traffic travelling northbound on Monte Vista Ave cannot make a northbound left-turn at this intersection. As such, for both residential and retail uses, the majority of inbound traffic will enter from Project driveways on Foothill Boulevard. The intersection of Monte Vista Ave/Driveway 4 would not be a major entry into the Project site based on the existing geometry and driver behavior. Since this access point would not be a major entry into the Project site, no street improvements are necessary. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment received.
100 Letter 14
Christine E. Blair 1402 N. Mills Avenue Claremont, CA 91711
June 15, 2020
To Whom It May Concern:
I have studied the EIR for The Commons, in particular the response to my letter of December 20, 2019. I continue to have the following concerns and do not think that they have been adequately addressed in the EIR.
1. Danger of proximity to Cable Airport (0.35 miles re EIR) : the very fact that there is an aviation easement planned in the middle of residences for emergency landings 14-1 demonstrates heightened danger not addressed in the EIR, Executive Summary, 4.6, nor in Appendix E-2. Accident statistics also do not include the 4 more recent accidents in the last 2 years.
2. Pollution as a result of proximity of Cable Airport: small airports produce air and land pollution due to the requirement of small and old airplanes for leaded gas (which is the predominant category of Cable Airport planes). The EIR in 4.1 only addresses the pollution caused by the proposed construction, not by the airport. Nor is air and land 14-2 pollution from the airport addressed in Appendix E-1. The possibility of lead in the soil is not addressed at all. See studies, for example: https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/news/small-airports-lead-pollution-risk/ Air pollution from these small planes is also a concern and is not addressed. For example: http://www.ceh.org/avgas/ (study of California airports, which include some smaller ones such as El Monte airport).
3. Noise: The EIR proposes to mitigate the effect of the noise from the airport which is over the acceptable 60 Decibels, by requiring insulating construction measures (Executive Summary, 4.9). However, the property development plan allows for outside play areas and for inhabitants to open their windows and sit outside and enjoy a good quality of life (see EIR, Project Objectives, 1.2.1). According to the EIR, planes are only 14-3 at about 400 ft. altitude as they fly over (and turn south) at Monte Vista and Foothill. As a resident just 2 blocks further west, dealing with plane noise regularly, with planes already higher and starting to turn south, I am often unable to sit outside, especially Friday, Saturday and Sunday mornings. The Commons residents will be unable to do so most of the time.
To the City Council: please rethink this development in terms of light industry and commercial buildings. 14-4 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
102 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
Responses to Letter 14: Christine E. Blair Response to Comment 14-1. The commenter is concerned the Draft EIR disregards the hazards associated with the potential for aircraft crashes on site.
Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2. In addition the Aircraft Risk Analysis, titled Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites (Appendix F2 of the Draft EIR) did not include the recent aircraft crashes identified by the commenter and the crash that occurred on June 24, 2020 along Foothill Boulevard in Upland because the Aircraft Risk Analysis was prepared prior to the occurrence of the recent aircraft crashes associated with Cable Airport. It should be noted the Draft EIR determined although the probability of Project residents being severely injured or killed due to a Cable Airport accident is low, the probability is still greater than if the proposed Project was not developed on the specific site. As such, impacts pertaining to this threshold would be potentially significant with implementation of the proposed Project and mitigation measures would be needed to reduce such an impact. Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A through 4.6.1.C would be implemented; however, these measures would not reduce hazard impacts to a less than significant level. As such, the Project EIR concluded there would be a significant and unavoidable impact, for which the City decision-makers are required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which includes evidence and findings that the hazards of the Project are outweighed by the benefits of the Project.
Response to Comment 14-2. The commenter states the proposed Project site and its inhabitants would be exposed to lead from aircraft flyovers using unleaded gas. In addition, the presence of lead in the soils on the Project site was not addressed.
With regard to exposure to aircraft emissions, please see Response to Comment 11-3.
It is understood that the majority of aircraft that use Cable Airport are operated using leaded aircraft fuel. Testing for lead in soil is done when evidence on site suggests current/past uses (e.g., former agricultural uses, staining, obvious contamination, past use of hazardous material handling, etc.). Based on the site specific Phase 1 that was prepared, no historic occurrences of past contamination or hazardous materials use were discovered on the Project site; therefore, no further testing was recommended (i.e., soil sampling for lead contamination). Lead testing in soil is required as a routine matter in cases involving roadway work (e.g., aerially deposited lead in soils adjacent to roadways from past use of leaded vehicle fuel) or in cases involving the demolition of existing structure old enough to potentially include lead based paint. In the absence of such instances, lead sampling of soils is not necessary. Aircraft using Cable Airport are known to use leaded aircraft fuel. It should be noted that the use of leaded aircraft fuels is an existing condition and implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the frequency, duration, intensity or type of flight operations to Cable Airport. As such, there would be no change in the amount or type of aircraft fuel use by aircraft using Cable Airport. It should be noted, leaded aircraft fuel is specifically used to ensure aircraft engine efficiency and safety. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides a fact sheet1 for the use of leaded aviation gasoline (AVGAS) and affects to the environment, which describes the following:
1 Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet-Leaded Aviation Fuel and the Environment, November 20, 2019. Website Accessed July 16, 2020: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754.
103 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
What is AVGAS? Avgas is a specialized fuel used to power piston engine aircraft. Aviation gasoline is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons that vary widely in their physical and chemical properties. The properties of AVGAS must be properly balanced to give reliable and safe engine performance over a wide range of aircraft operating conditions. Manufacturers typically certify their engines and aircraft to run on fuels that meet American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards, or other consensus standards such as the United Kingdom’s Defense Standards or U.S. Military Standards, which govern the chemical, physical and performance properties of AVGAS. Although there are various ASTM Standards for AVGAS, almost all AVGAS on the U.S. market today is low lead. This grade of AVGAS satisfies the requirements of all piston engines using AVGAS, regardless of their performance level. Jet aircraft and turbine-powered, propeller aircraft to not use AVGAS, but instead use fuels very similar to kerosene, which does not contain a lead additive.
Why keep using leaded fuel? First and foremost, the use of leaded fuels is an operational safety issue, because without the additive TEL, the octane levels would be too low for some engines, and use of a lower octane fuel than required could lead to engine failure. As a result, the additive TEL has not been banned from avgas. Aircraft manufacturers, the petroleum industry, and the FAA have worked for over a decade to find alternative fuels that meet the octane requirements of the piston engine aircraft fleet without the additive TEL. However, no operationally safe, suitable replacement for leaded fuel has yet been found to meet the needs of all of the piston engine aircraft fleet.
Based on the information provided above, the presence of lead levels generated by aircraft on the Project site are anticipated to be non-existent or below threshold values requiring soil testing. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response to Comment 14-3. The commenter is concerned the noise levels from aircraft overflights will be greater than 60 dBA and have an effect on residents being able to enjoy outside areas and to open their windows.
Please refer to Response to Comments 10-2 through 10-4 and 11-14. Subsection 4.9.7.3, under subheading “Public Airport Noise” in Section 4.9 of the Project EIR. This section discusses the outdoor ambient noise levels that onsite residents would be exposed to due to Cable Airport operation generated noise. The basic California guidance sets a CNEL of 65 dB as the maximum noise level generated by an airport that is normally compatible with urban residential land uses. However, the current Claremont General Plan indicates that the maximum acceptable exposure from aircraft‐ related noise for new residential development is 60 dBA CNEL. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Text Amendment that would revise the maximum acceptable exposure from aircraft related noise for new residential development from 60 dBA CNEL to 70 dBA CNEL. As explained elsewhere in the Response to Comments and in the Final EIR, City staff is recommending that the proposed Amendment be scaled back so that the maximum exposure is 65 dBA CNEL (refer to Section 3.0 Errata in this Final EIR). The proposed Project is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of Cable Airport; as such, the EIR determined that outdoor residential areas on the Project site would be exposed to noise levels from Cable Airport that would not exceed the exterior threshold standards that would be updated through the General Plan Text Amendment. Residential onsite interior noise
104 F I N A L E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
analysis was also conducted in the EIR and was determined to be above threshold units. The interior noise analysis included airport noise generated by Cable Airport. The EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9.1A and 4.9.1B which would require all residential units to have HVAC units to reduce the amount of windows being opened by residents on the site and preparation of a Final Acoustic Report. The Final Acoustic Report would analyze interior noise levels of onsite residential units based on ambient noise levels in the area (a combination of common urban noise, airport noise, and roadway noise) and would suggest design features (i.e. double pained windows) to be implemented to ensure that interior noise levels are below the 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise standard of Claremont and no greater than 40 dBA CNEL from noise generated by Cable Airport operations. The analysis presented in the Project EIR fulfills the commenters request; as such, no revisions to the EIR are warranted.
Response to Comment 14-4. The commenter states the proposed Project should be rethought as a commercial development. The comment does not address the validity of the analysis in the Draft EIR; however, the comment will be provided to the City’s decision-makers as part of their consideration prior to action on the proposed Project.
105 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R EPORT T H E C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C I T Y O F C LAREMONT , C ALIFORNIA A U G U S T 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
106 Letter 15
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov
June 15, 2020
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 [email protected]
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Commons, SCH #2019110341, Los Angeles County
Dear Ms. Davis:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Commons (Project). The Project’s supporting documentation includes Biological Resources Assessment, The Commons Project, Cities of Claremont and Upland, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, LSA Associates, Inc., March 2020 (BRA). 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’s 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 & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (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 state fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game 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 & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & Game Code, §1900 et seq.) authorization as provided by the applicable Fish and Game Code will be required.
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 2 of 22 June 15, 2020
Project Description and Summary
Objective: The Project would result in the development of 27 single-family homes, 20 townhomes, 15 second-story residential flats, and 5,000 square feet of retail space below the residential flats on a 6.5-acre site in the City of Claremont (in the County of Los Angeles). The development will have a 150-foot-wide avigation easement, which will be used as active and passive open space for the Project. There are three types of plans that will be built on site: single-family detached units, 2, 3, and 4-bedroom townhomes, and single-story flats. The site will be accessed by two driveways on Foothill Boulevard and one on Monte Vista Avenue. As a note, since the release of the NOP, the applicant has separately applied to the City of Upland for approval of a development project on the 3.0 acres it owns in the City of Upland pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35. The applicant represents that the currently proposed development within Upland will either be approved pursuant to SB 35, without CEQA review, or it will not be constructed. For this reason, and for purposes of this comment letter, the Project only comprises the 6.5 acres of land within the City of Claremont.
Location: The Project site is on approximately 6.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Monte Vista Avenue in the City of Claremont. The City of Claremont is bounded by unincorporated land in Los Angeles County to the north, the Cities of Pomona and Montclair to the south, the City of Upland to the east, and the City of La Verne and County of Los Angeles unincorporated land to the west. The Project site occupies Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 8307-003-066 (Los Angeles County). The parcel is primarily undeveloped apart from an Armstrong Garden Center. The nursery will remain and will become the adjacent neighboring property to the west of the planned residential/mixed-use development portion of the Project in Claremont. The nursery occupies 1.42 acres west of the 6.5-acre Project site and is part of proposed Tentative Tract Map 82135 being processed for the Project.
Comments and Recommendations
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science-based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project’s CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, § 15097).
Comment #1: Vegetation Community Classification
Issue #1: As stated in the DEIR, disking and grading will be required to accommodate the development. Grading a sensitive vegetation community is considered a permanent impact.
Issue #2: Section 4.2.1.1 of the DEIR states, “Vegetation occupying the majority of the Project site is best described as Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) (R.F. Holland 1986)”. 15-1 The Project does not utilize the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer, et al., 2008) to identify vegetation associations and alliances on site.
Specific impact: CDFW considers grading a vegetation community a permanent impact unless mitigation is proposed that includes specific criteria that ensure the exact vegetation community is recreated, with consideration for the temporal loss of the habitat as well as defined success
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 3 of 22 June 15, 2020
criteria and weed management. Revegetation or acquisition/preservation would be a mitigation measure proposed to offset impacts to a CDFW sensitive vegetation community.
Why impact would occur: CDFW considers vegetation communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3 and some S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6 to 20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences. The Project may have direct or indirect effects to these sensitive vegetation communities.
Any revegetation effort should represent the actual vegetation community being impacted. Vegetation communities are named using alliances or associations. An example is California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance. The Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, et al., 2008) separates the diagnostic species for the California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance into trans and cis montane stands. If some type of restoration were to occur that involved revegetation, CDFW is concerned spreading a generic seed mix that is not truly representative of the unique plant community alliances present will impact the existing habitat, introduce species that don’t occur there, and ultimately change the structure of the vegetation community. Additionally, plants that aren’t found in an area may not be suited to survive there, raising the rate of failure.
Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, road construction, utilities construction, road maintenance, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of sensitive vegetation communities. If sensitive areas are not correctly identified, CDFW is unable to accurately determine proper mitigation measures 15-1 for that vegetation community. Cont. Evidence impact would be significant: The DEIR determined that Project impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required for the on-site RAFSS. According to the DEIR, the habitat is highly degraded, small in size (3.01 acres), isolated from other RAFSS areas by existing residential, industrial, commercial, and roadway uses, and no longer functions as part of a fluvial system. CDFW disagrees with the conclusions made within the DEIR and believes that this sensitive plant alliance is vulnerable in the state for this very reason. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to potentially sensitive communities on site will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect. This, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Impacts to all sensitive communities should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Using non-conforming modifications to MCV alliances may misidentify rare or sensitive vegetation communities, resulting in impacts to the species.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: Vegetation Communities that do not conform to existing MCV-defined alliances might be considered rare. All data and proposed modification to existing or new alliances should be submitted to CDFW for scientific review. If a project’s dominant vegetation does not fit into one of the non-native alliances or provisional alliances, then a description (scientific, including information used to determine membership for this new alliance) should be
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 4 of 22 June 15, 2020
included to defend this conclusion. This process is imperative to maintain a rigorous scientific vetting process and defensible classification system.
Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends that updated botanical surveys utilizing MCV- defined alliances be conducted to inform impact assessments, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the DEIR. Focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on-site should be disclosed in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist should “conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” CEQA documentation should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project-related 15-1 direct and indirect impacts. Cont. Recommendation #3: Please note, in 2007, the State Legislature required CDFW to develop and maintain a vegetation mapping standard for the state (Fish & Game Code, § 1940). This standard complies with the National Vegetation Classification System, which utilizes alliance- and association-based classification of unique vegetation stands. CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), found online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/. To determine the rarity ranking and mitigation ratios of vegetation communities on the Project site, the MCV alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this classification system.
Comment #2: Impacts to Streams
Issue #1: The BRA states that the Project site contains, “Two remnant drainage features associated with two existing concrete box culverts under Foothill Boulevard… Currently, these two drainage features show no upstream connectivity to natural water conveyance features or systems.”
Issue #2: The Drainage Report for The Commons at NW Corner Foothill Blvd & Monte Vista Ave. City of Claremont and City of Upland. Andreasen Engineering, Inc. October 16, 2018 states post developed site conditions will consist of, “off-site drainage will enter catch basins on the north property line conveyed in pipes across the subject development and connected to existing box culverts. On site drainage will enter a series of catch basins and storm drainpipes 15-2 and discharge into a CONTECH underground chamber network.”
CDFW has broad regulatory authority over jurisdictional waters of the state and is concerned that the DEIR appears to conclude that because an ephemeral drainage on the Project site does not appear to characterize jurisdictional waters, that grading and construction activities within the drainage will not impact any jurisdictional waters and associated biological resources within jurisdictional waters of the state. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires and 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, waster 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
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 5 of 22 June 15, 2020
time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes and water courses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply for work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water.
Specific impacts: The Project may result in the loss of ephemeral streams and associated watershed function and biological diversity. Grading and construction activities will likely alter the topography, and thus the hydrology, of the Project site.
Why impacts would occur: Ground disturbing activities from grading, filling, and water diversions would physically remove or otherwise alter existing streams or their function and associated habitat on the Project site. Downstream streams and associated biological resources beyond the Project development footprint may also be impacted by Project related releases of sediment and altered watershed effects resulting from Project activities.
Evidence impacts would be significant: The Project may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern on the Project site through the alteration or diversion of a stream, which absent specific mitigation, could result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site of the Project. In addition, the presence of vegetation such as scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), sapphire woollystar (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) indicates the presence of an ephemeral source of water. The areas around the Project site contains ephemeral drainages and these species are found primarily on gravelly alluvial fans or upland slopes (Clarke, O.F. et al. 2007). Alluvial fans are deposits of water-transported material, indicating that surface water flows within the Project site. Based on the foregoing, Project impacts may substantially adversely affect the existing stream pattern and associated habitat of the Project site. 15-2 Cont. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: The Project as described supports CDFW jurisdictional waters of the state and should be designed to avoid impacts to this resource.
Mitigation Measure #2: If avoidance is not feasible the Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600.
CDFW’s issuance of an LSA for a Project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA.
Mitigation Measure #3: Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW may include additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project. The LSA may include further erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off- site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA may include the
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 6 of 22 June 15, 2020
following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity.
Mitigation Measure #4: CDFW recommends the Project proponent actively implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollutants into ephemeral stream beds during Project activities. BMPs should be monitored and repaired, if necessary, to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. The Project proponent shall prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and 15-2 wildlife species, such as mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, Cont. within stream areas. All fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the Project site shall be free of nonnative plant materials. Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh shall be made of loose-weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other projects without welded weaves. Non-welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread.
Comment #3: Impacts to nesting birds
Issue: While CDFW recognizes mitigation measure 4.2.5.4 of the DEIR is near sufficient for mitigation for nesting birds, CDFW is concerned with potential for special status bird species to be on the Project site.
Specific impacts: Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in trees directly adjacent to the Project boundary. The Project could also lead to the loss of foraging habitat for sensitive bird species.
Why impact would occur: Impacts to nesting birds could result from ground disturbing activities. Project disturbance activities could result in mortality or injury to nestlings, as well temporary or long-term loss of suitable foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of nesting birds could result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.
Evidence impact would be significant: The loss of occupied habitat or reductions in the number of rare bird species, either directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, would constitute a significant impact absent appropriate mitigation. 15-3 Furthermore, nests of all native bird species are protected under state laws and regulations, Cont. including Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: To protect nesting birds that may occur on site or adjacent to the Project boundary, CDFW recommends that no construction should occur from February 15 through August 31 (January 1 for raptors).
Mitigation Measure #2: If Project activities cannot be voided from February 15 through August 31 a qualified biologist should complete a survey for nesting bird activity within a 500- foot radius of the construction site. The nesting bird surveys should be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. CDFW recommends the
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 7 of 22 June 15, 2020
Lead Agency require surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of any Project-related activity likely to impact raptors and migratory songbirds, for the entire Project site. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days during the breeding season, repeat the surveys. If nesting raptors and migratory songbirds are identified, CDFW recommends the following minimum no-disturbance buffers be implemented 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet 15-3 around active non-listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active listed bird nests. Cont.
These buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Buffers should be increased if needed to protect active nests.
Comment #4: Impacts to Candidate Endangered Species – Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Issue: The DEIR states that the site provides low to moderately suitable habitat for several special status species, including Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii).
Specific Impact: Project ground disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in crushing or filling of active bee colonies, causing the death or injury of adults, eggs, and larvae. The Project may remove bee habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging habitat.
Why Impact would occur: Impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee could result from ground disturbing activities. Project disturbance activities could result in mortality or injury to hibernating bees, as well as temporary or long-term loss of suitable foraging habitats. Construction during the breeding season of bees could result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. 15-4 Evidence Impact would be significant: On June 12, 2019, CDFW accepted a petition for Crotch’s bumble bee as a candidate species for listing under CESA. As a CESA candidate, the species is granted full protection of a threatened or endangered species under CESA. The Project's potential to substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, reduce and potentially seriously impair the viability of populations of Crotch’s bumble bee, and reduce the number and range of the species while taking into account the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project site.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified entomologist familiar with the species behavior and life history should conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys should be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1 (Thorp et al. 1983). Survey results including negative findings should be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. If “take” or adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, please be advised that a CESA permit must be obtained (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq.).
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 8 of 22 June 15, 2020
Comment #5: Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species
Issue #1: The BRA identifies “marginally suitable habitat” exists on the Project site for Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), a CESA and Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed endangered species. This plant species blooms from March to June but the field survey was conducted in October.
Issue #2: The BRA also identifies “low to moderate suitable habitat” for the mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneate var. puberula), a species that is seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened and a high degree and immediacy of threat). This plant species blooms from February to July but the field survey was conducted in October.
Specific impact: The Project may cause immediate species injury or death, habitat fragmentation, alteration of soil chemical and physical makeup, increased competition with exotic invasive weeds, and reduced photosynthesis and reproductive capacity. This would result in native plant population declines or local extirpation of special status plant species. The effects of these impacts would be permanent or occur over several years.
CDFW considers plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S1, S2, S3 and S4 as sensitive and declining at the local and regional level (Sawyer et al. 2008). An S3 ranking indicates there are 21 to 80 occurrences of this community in existence in California, S2 has 6 to 20 occurrences, and S1 has less than 6 occurrences.
Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, road construction, road maintenance, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, 15-5 population declines, or local extirpation of sensitive plant species.
Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special status plant species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these sensitive plant species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends conducting focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on-site and disclosing the results in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist should “conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” The final CEQA documentation should provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts.
Mitigation Measure #2: CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive plant species found on the Project. If avoidance is not feasible, mitigating at a ratio of no less than 5:1 for impacts to imperiled species and 3:1 for impacts to vulnerable species. This ratio is for the acreage and the
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 9 of 22 June 15, 2020
individual plants that comprise each unique community. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation should include preparation of a restoration plan, to be approved by USFWS and CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan should include 15-5 restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should Cont. success criteria not be met; long-term management and maintenance goals; and, a funding mechanism to assure for in perpetuity management and reporting. Areas proposed as mitigation should have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968).
Recommendation #3: Please see Recommendation #3 in Comment #1
Comment #6: Impacts to California Species of Special Concern
Issue #1: Two reptile species that are a California Species of Special Concern, California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainillii), are identified in the DEIR with a low to moderate potential to occur on site.
Issue #2: Two mammal species that are California Species of Special Concern, Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), are identified in the DEIR with a low to moderate potential to occur on site.
Specific impact: Project ground disturbing activities such as grading and grubbing may result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, and hatchlings. The Project may remove habitat by eliminating native vegetation that may support essential foraging and breeding habitat.
Why impact would occur: Project implementation includes grading, vegetation clearing, road construction, road maintenance, and other activities that may result in direct mortality, population declines, or local extirpation of California Species of Special Concern. 15-6 Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for state and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to California Species of Special Concern which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These Species of Special Concern meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of Species of Special Concern could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency, (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065).
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified biologist familiar with the reptile species behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. Surveys should be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. California glossy snakes are nocturnal and generally active from late February to November (depending on local weather conditions), reaching peak activity in May. Coast horned lizard are active February to November and are diurnal in the spring and crepuscular in summer and fall (Thomson, R.C. et al. 2016). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to initiation of Project activities.
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 10 of 22 June 15, 2020
Mitigation Measure #2: Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified biologist familiar with the mammal species behavior and life history should conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. The Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is nocturnal and active year-round although surface activity is reduced during cold spells (Zeiner, D.C. et al., 1988-1990). The San Diego desert woodrat is active yearlong, is mainly nocturnal, but also crepuscular and occasionally diurnal (Stones and Hayward 1968, Miller and Stebbins 1964). Survey results, including negative findings, should be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to 15-6 initiation of Project activities. Cont. Mitigation Measure #3: To further avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on-site during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related grading activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the designated entity should obtain all appropriate state and federal permits.
Comment #7: Impacts to Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Issue: The BRA states, “Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation on site may provide nest sites for smaller birds, and burrowing owls may nest in ground squirrel burrows, pipes, or similar features.”
Specific impact: Potential for burrowing owl habitat on site indicates that Project activities may result in direct and/or indirect burrowing owl mortality or injury; the disruption of natural burrowing owl breeding behavior; and loss of breeding, wintering and foraging habitat for the species. Project impacts would contribute to statewide population declines for burrowing owl.
Why impact would occur: Burrowing owls have been known to use highly degraded and 15-7 marginal habitat where existing burrows or stem pipes are available. Nest and roost burrows of the burrowing owl are most commonly dug by ground squirrels, but they have also been known to use a variety of other species dens or holes (Gervais, J.A., Rosenberg, D.K., & Comrack, L.A., 2008). Impacts to burrowing owl could result from vegetation clearing and other ground disturbing activities. Project disturbance activities may result in crushing or filling of active owl burrows, causing the death or injury of adults, eggs, and young. In addition, the Project will remove burrowing owl foraging habitat by eliminating native vegetation that supports essential rodent, insect, and reptile that are prey for burrowing owl. Rodent control activities could result in direct and secondary poisoning of burrowing owl ingesting treated rodents.
Evidence impact would be significant: 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.” Without appropriate take avoidance surveys prior to Project operations including, but not limited to, ground and vegetation disturbing activities and rodent control activities, adverse impacts to burrowing owl may occur because species presence/absence has not been verified. In addition, burrowing owl qualifies for enhanced
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 11 of 22 June 15, 2020
consideration afforded to species under CEQA, which can be shown to meet the criteria for listing as endangered, rare or threatened (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380(d)).
Insufficient survey efforts for burrowing owl may conclude false negative results, which would not require avoidance and mitigation measure implementation. Inadequate avoidance and mitigation measures will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: To reduce impacts to burrowing owl, CDFW recommends that the Project adhere to CDFW’s March 7, 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. All survey efforts should be conducted prior to any project activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil, vegetation or other sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31 August with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. Survey protocol for breeding season owl surveys states to conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June.
Mitigation Measure #2: Permanent impacts to occupied owl burrows and adjacent foraging habitat should be offset by setting aside replacement habitat to be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, 15-7 which should include an appropriate non-wasting endowment to provide for the long-term Cont. management of mitigation lands. CDFW recommends that the City require a burrowing owl mitigation plan be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to Project implementation.
Mitigation Measure #3: For proposed preservation and/or restoration, the final environmental document should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity from direct and indirect negative impacts. The objective should be to offset the Project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non-wasting endowment should be provided for the long-term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. CDFW recommends that mitigation occur at a state-approved bank or via an entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012), which amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves.
Mitigation Measure #4: Project use of rodenticides that could result in direct or secondary poisoning to burrowing owl should be avoided.
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 12 of 22 June 15, 2020
Comment #8: California Senate Bill (SB) 35
Issue: The DEIR states, “However, since the release of the NOP, the applicant has separately applied to the City of Upland for approval of a development project on the 3.0 acres it owns in the City of Upland pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4, if that development project is within the scope of SB 35, it is not subject to CEQA review. The applicant represents that the currently proposed development within Upland will either be approved pursuant to SB 35, without CEQA review, or it will not be constructed. For this reason, and for purposes of this EIR, the Project comprises the 6.5 acres of land within Claremont, together with off-site improvements necessary to provide access and utilities to the Project. The potential development of the 3.0 acres of property owned by the applicant, which is located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Monte Vista Avenue, will be treated as an adjacent cumulative project.”
Specific impact: SB35 streamlines development if there is a housing shortage. There are certain requirements, one of these being multi-unit housing and not single-family homes. A preliminary site plan for the Project indicates approximately 27 single-family detached homes, 68 townhomes, and 5,000 square feet of retail with 15 flats above the retail spaces and related 15-8 parking in the City of Claremont and 48 townhomes in the City of Upland. It is unclear if the addition of 27 single-family detached homes within the proposed development falls within the requirements of SB35.
Why impact would occur: If the 3.0 acres in the City of Upland will be developed as an adjacent cumulative project, cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources should be discussed in the EIR with specific measures to offset such impacts. Evidence impact would be significant: Cumulative impacts may result due to the potential approval of proposed development without CEQA review within Upland in areas that may include sensitive species and natural habitat.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure: Include a cumulative effects analysis that includes this 3.0-acre area in the City of Upland, as described under CEQA Guidelines section 15130 in the final environmental document. 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. In addition, specific measures to offset and mitigate such impacts should be included.
Filing Fees
The Project, as proposed, could 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 & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 13 of 22 June 15, 2020
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Felicia Silva, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected] or (562) 430-0098.
Sincerely,
Erinn Wilson Environmental Program Manager I
ec: CDFW Victoria Tang – Los Alamitos Felicia Silva – Los Alamitos Andrew Valand – Los Alamitos Frederic Reiman – Los Alamitos Malinda Santonil – Los Alamitos Susan Howell – San Diego CEQA Program Coordinator - Sacramento
State Clearinghouse
References:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Accessed at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]. March 7, 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (see https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843). Clarke, Oscar F., Svehla, Danielle, Ballmer, Greg, Montalvo, Arlee. Flora of the Santa Ana River and Environs: with References to World Botany. Oscar F. Clarke, 2007. Gervais, J.A., Rosenberg, D.K., and Comrack, L.A. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distint populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Miller, A. H., and R. C. Stebbins. 1964. The lives of desert animals in Joshua Tree National Monument. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 452pp. Sawyer, J.O., Keeler Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2008. A manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. ISBN 978 0 943460 49 9.
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 14 of 22 June 15, 2020
Stones, R. C., and C. L. Hayward. 1968. Natural history of the desert woodrat, Neotoma lepida. Am. Midl. Nat. 80:458-476.tions and their impact on desert rangelands. New Mexico State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stat. Bull. No. 555. 17pp.asites. Southwest. Nat. 23:401-407. Thomson, Robert C., Wright, Amber N., Shaffer, H. Bradley. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. Oakland. University of California Press and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. Thorp, Robbin W., Horning Jr, Donald S., and Dunning, Lorry L. 1983. Bumble Bees and Cuckoo Bumble Bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Californi
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov
CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Party MM-BIO-1- Vegetation Vegetation Communities that do not conform to existing Prior to City of Claremont Community MCV-defined alliances might be considered rare. All data Construction Classification and proposed modification to existing or new alliances shall be submitted to CDFW for scientific review. If a project’s dominant vegetation does not fit into one of the non-native alliances or provisional alliances, then a description (scientific, including information used to determine membership for this new alliance) shall be included to defend this conclusion. This process is imperative to maintain a rigorous scientific vetting process and defensible classification system. MM-BIO-2- Vegetation Updated botanical surveys utilizing MCV-defined Prior to City of Claremont Community alliances shall be conducted to inform impact Construction Classification assessments, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the DEIR. Focused surveys for sensitive/rare plants on-site shall be disclosed in the CEQA document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018), a qualified biologist shall “conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” CEQA documentation shall provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 16 of 22 June 15, 2020
sensitive plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts. MM-BIO-3-Impacts to The Project as described supports CDFW jurisdictional Prior to City of Claremont ephemeral streams waters of the state and shall be designed to avoid Construction impacts to this resource. shall MM-BIO-4-Impacts to If avoidance is not feasible the Project applicant (or Prior to City of Claremont ephemeral streams “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW Construction pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at www.wildlife.ca.gov/habcon/1600.
CDFW’s issuance of an LSA for a Project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA document shall fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA. MM-BIO-5-Impacts to Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW Prior to City of Claremont ephemeral streams may include additional measures protective of Construction streambeds on and downstream of the Project. The LSA may include further erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA may include the following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation,
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 17 of 22 June 15, 2020
enhancement or restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity. MM-BIO-6-Impacts to The Project proponent shall actively implement Best Prior to and City of Claremont ephemeral streams Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and During the discharge of sediment and pollutants into ephemeral Construction stream beds during Project activities. BMPs shall be monitored and repaired, if necessary, to ensure maximum erosion, sediment, and pollution control. The Project proponent shall prohibit the use of erosion control materials potentially harmful to fish and wildlife species, such as mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material, within stream areas. All fiber rolls, straw wattles, and/or hay bales utilized within and adjacent to the Project site shall be free of nonnative plant materials. Fiber rolls or erosion control mesh shall be made of loose-weave mesh that is not fused at the intersections of the weave, such as jute, or coconut (coir) fiber, or other projects without welded weaves. Non- welded weaves reduce entanglement risks to wildlife by allowing animals to push through the weave, which expands when spread. MM-BIO-7-Impacts to To protect nesting birds that may occur on site or Prior to and City of Claremont nesting birds adjacent to the Project boundary, no construction shall During occur from February 15 through August 31 (January 1 for Construction raptors). MM-BIO-8-Impacts to If Project activities cannot be voided from February 15 Prior to and City of Claremont nesting birds through August 31, a qualified biologist shall complete a During survey for nesting bird activity within a 500-foot radius of Construction the construction site. The nesting bird surveys shall be conducted at appropriate nesting times and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites. The Lead Agency shall require surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the beginning of any Project-related activity likely to impact raptors and
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 18 of 22 June 15, 2020
migratory songbirds, for the entire Project site. If Project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 7 days during the breeding season, repeat the surveys. If nesting raptors and migratory songbirds are identified, the following minimum no-disturbance buffers be implemented: 300 feet around active passerine (perching birds and songbirds) nests, 500 feet around active non- listed raptor nests and 0.5 mile around active listed bird nests.
These buffers shall be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. MM-BIO-9- Impacts to Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, Prior to City of Claremont Candidate Endangered within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or Construction Species – Crotch’s grading, a qualified entomologist familiar with the species Bumble Bee behavior and life history shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys shall be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 to September 1 (Thorp et al. 1983). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. If “take” or adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided either during Project activities or over the life of the Project, please be advised that a CESA permit must be obtained (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq.). MM-BIO-10- Impacts to Focused surveys shall be conducted for sensitive/rare Prior to City of Claremont Special Status Plant plants on-site and disclosing the results in the CEQA Construction Species document. Based on the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW,
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 19 of 22 June 15, 2020
2018), a qualified biologist shall “conduct botanical surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting.” The final CEQA documentation shall provide a thorough discussion on the presence/absence of sensitive plants on-site and identify measures to protect sensitive plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts. MM-BIO-11- Impacts to CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive plant species Prior to City of Claremont Special Status Plant found on the Project. If avoidance is not feasible, Construction Species mitigating at a ratio of no less than 5:1 for impacts to imperiled species and 3:1 for impacts to vulnerable species. This ratio is for the acreage and the individual plants that comprise each unique community. All revegetation/restoration areas that will serve as mitigation shall include preparation of a restoration plan, to be approved by USFWS and CDFW prior to any ground disturbance. The restoration plan shall include restoration and monitoring methods; annual success criteria; contingency actions should success criteria not be met; long-term management and maintenance goals; and, a funding mechanism to assure for in perpetuity management and reporting. Areas proposed as mitigation shall have a recorded conservation easement and be dedicated to an entity which has been approved to hold/manage lands (AB 1094; Government Code, §§ 65965-65968). MM-BIO-12- Impacts to Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, Prior to City of Claremont California Species of prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified Construction Special Concern biologist familiar with the reptile species behavior and life history shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. Surveys shall be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. California
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 20 of 22 June 15, 2020
glossy snakes are nocturnal and generally active from late February to November (depending on local weather conditions), reaching peak activity in May. Coast horned lizard are active February to November and are diurnal in the spring and crepuscular in summer and fall (Thomson, R.C. et al. 2016). Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. MM-BIO-13- Impacts to Due to potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, Prior to City of Claremont California Species of prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified Construction Special Concern biologist familiar with the mammal species behavior and life history shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of Species of Special Concern. The Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is nocturnal and active year-round although surface activity is reduced during cold spells (Zeiner, D.C. et al., 1988- 1990). The San Diego desert woodrat is active yearlong, is mainly nocturnal, but also crepuscular and occasionally diurnal (Stones and Hayward 1968, Miller and Stebbins 1964). Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. MM-BIO-14- Impacts to To further avoid direct mortality, a qualified biological Prior to City of Claremont California Species of monitor approved by CDFW shall be on-site during Construction Special Concern ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-related grading activities. It shall be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the Project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the Project clearly identify that the
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 21 of 22 June 15, 2020
designated entity shall obtain all appropriate state and federal permits. MM-BIO-15-Impacts to The Project shall adhere to CDFW’s March 7, 2012, Staff Prior to City of Claremont Burrowing Owls Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation as referenced in the Construction MND. All survey efforts shall be conducted prior to any project activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil, vegetation or other sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31 August with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. Survey protocol for breeding season owl surveys states to conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June. MM-BIO-16-Impacts to Permanent impacts to occupied owl burrows and Prior to City of Claremont Burrowing Owls adjacent foraging habitat shall be offset by setting aside Construction replacement habitat to be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which shall include an appropriate non-wasting endowment to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. The City shall require a burrowing owl mitigation plan be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to Project implementation. MM-BIO-17-Impacts to For proposed preservation and/or restoration, the final Prior to City of Claremont Burrowing Owls environmental document shall include measures to Construction protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity from direct and indirect negative impacts. The objective shall be to offset the project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that shall be addressed include, but are not limited to, restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont Page 22 of 22 June 15, 2020
dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non-wasting endowment shall be provided for the long-term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. Mitigation shall occur at a state-approved bank or via an entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012), which amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. MM-BIO-18-Impacts to Project use of rodenticides that could result in direct or Prior to City of Claremont Burrowing Owls secondary poisoning to burrowing owl shall be avoided. Construction MM-BIO-19-Cumulative Include a cumulative effects analysis that includes this Prior to City of Claremont Impacts 3.0-acre area in the City of Upland, as described under Construction CEQA Guidelines section 15130 in the final environmental document. 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. In addition, specific measures to offset and mitigate such impacts shall be included.
F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 15: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response to Comment 15‐1. The commenter states portions of the site harbor a sensitive vegetation community and that grading activities associated with development of the proposed Project would constitute a permanent impact unless mitigation is identified to ensure the exact vegetation community is recreated. The commenter requests the consideration of temporal habitat loss, defined success criteria, and weed management of any re‐creation of habitat. Finally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) suggests revegetation or acquisition/preservation would be appropriate mitigation for impacts to a sensitive vegetation community.
The plant species occurring on the site are not intrinsically rare or valuable. The majority of the vegetation onsite is largely dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Other species observed include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California cholla (Cylindropuntia californica), sapphire woollystar (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei). According to the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer, et al., 2008), vegetation within the Project site is best described as Lepidospartum squamatum Shrubland Alliance (Scale broom scrub), which, based on the description, most closely aligns with Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) (R.F. Holland 1986). Ruderal vegetation was also observed within the proposed Project site, intermixed with the scale broom scrub habitat. Dominant ruderal species identified include shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). Other ruderal, non‐native species observed on site include tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle).
Scale broom scrub habitat in a more natural setting is often considered sensitive because of its dynamic nature (on active alluvial fans), plant and animal species diversity, and the fact that it can be habitat for rare or endangered species and healthy populations of other special‐status species. The Biological Resource Assessment (Appendix C‐1, Draft EIR) for the proposed Project include areas within the Cities of Claremont and Upland. Because the scope of the proposed Project has been reduced, the Project assessed in the Draft EIR includes only that portion of the applicant’s property within the City Claremont. Accordingly, the total amount of scalebroom habitat affected by development of the proposed Project would be reduced from 5.37 acres to 3.01 acres.
Although scale broom scrub habitat is considered by CDFW to be a sensitive vegetation community with a statewide ranking of S3, as indicated by on‐site observations, the existing state of scale broom habitat found within the surveyed area is highly degraded due to the prevalence of ruderal vegetation, unvegetated areas associated with unlawful dumping, concrete rubble and building (cinderblock and brick) and asphalt debris along with modern refuse. Additionally, the habitat is isolated from larger areas of scale broom scrub habitat and is no longer subjected to the dynamic nature of alluvial soil transport due to the extensive surrounding development. Subsequently, the 3.01 acres of scale broom scrub habitat surveyed are not considered suitable for the long‐term preservation of the non‐listed sensitive species discussed in the response to Comment 15‐6, below. In addition, the federally listed‐ as‐threatened Californian gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was found to be absent from the Project site (see Results of a Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey for the Commons Project in the Cities of Claremont and Upland letter report, dated April 24, 2020). Preservation of the
129 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
scale broom scrub habitat on this site would not contribute to the conservation effort of larger blocks of this habitat in the region.
It is the consultant’s expert opinion the loss of the scale broom habitat on site will result in an incremental loss of habitat in the region, but is not considered cumulatively significant when considered in the context of the larger scale conservation efforts described Response to Comment 15‐6. Thus, no change in the significance of the impact identified in the Draft EIR would occur.
Response to Comment 15‐2. Please refer to the Response to Comment 11‐5. The CDFW based its determination of the “likely” nature of the on‐site drainages on a review of aerial and site photographs. The evaluation of the drainages identified in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was based not only on review of aerial imagery, but also on field observations, conversation with the Project engineer regarding past and current flow patterns on site, as well as review of the proposed Project’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
As stated in the Draft EIR, the site receives water from sheet flows from adjacent development. Upon conveyance under Foothill Boulevard, these flows continue to the site of the Claremont Colleges East Campus Sports Park (Sports Park) which has been planned for the development of a variety of athletic facilities, parking areas, and ancillary features. Drainage at the Sports Park includes construction of a retention basin that will collect storm water (including flows conveyed under Foothill Boulevard) via storm drains and v‐shaped concrete drainage swales installed along graded terraces on slopes within the Sports Park site. Water collected in the retention basin will infiltrate into the ground (Appendix O, Claremont Colleges East Campus Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2010021040, October 2015.)
The Draft EIR identifies Typical Standard Condition and Regulations HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 requiring compliance with NPDES standards and development of a Stormwater Pollution Protection Program (SWPPP) that details the Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment and pollution during Project activities. Alluvial fans are deposits of water‐transported material. Due to past development and previous channelization, the site does not receive natural alluvial soil transport or demonstrate natural alluvial processes. Historic aerial photographs indicate that water has been diverted through the site and/or being drained onto the Project site from adjacent industrial practices as early as 1948. The features demonstrate no upstream connectivity to natural features or systems. Furthermore, the existing natural condition on‐site is highly degraded due to the prevalence of ruderal vegetation, unlawful dumping, and previous disturbance. As detailed in the Draft EIR, while flows do cross across the Project site, the Project’s effects on the on‐site features would not be significant because the drainages are the result of non‐natural circumstances (i.e., water being diverted through the site and/or being drained onto the study area from adjacent industrial conveyance of nuisance flows on the site to the drainages as determined by the Project’s SUSMP). No revision of the Draft EIR is warranted.
Response to Comment 15‐3. While mitigation in the Draft EIR is “near sufficient”, the commenter states the site has the potential to host special status bird species.
As detailed in Table 4.2.B of Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR, only two special‐status bird species have been reported within 1.5 miles of the site and only one of these species, the coastal California
130 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
gnatcatcher, has the potential to occur on site due to the presence of marginally suitable habitat. Subsequently, California gnatcatcher protocol surveys on the Project site were conducted in early 2020 (January through April) and gnatcatchers were determined not to be present, as detailed in Section 4.2.4.2 of the Draft EIR:
California gnatcatcher protocol surveys on the Project site were conducted by Stanley Spencer under LSA Federal 10(a)(1)(A) Permit TE 777965 and California Department of Fish and Wildlife attachments to Scientific Collecting Permit SC‐000777 providing Conditions for Research on Listed Birds (February 14, 2018–February 14, 2021). The survey was conducted following the cross season survey methods and in accordance with the 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California gnatcatcher survey guidelines for breeding and nonbreeding season surveys. The survey included 4 nonbreeding and 4 breeding season surveys. It was conducted by walking throughout the survey area listening and watching for coastal California gnatcatchers. Taped vocalizations were played at intervals of about 15 minutes during the surveys until California gnatcatcher was detected. No gnatcatchers were observed.
Further, Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.4 of the Draft EIR exceeds the minimum thresholds identified in the CDFW’s suggested Mitigation Measures #1 and #2 associated with this comment. While the CDFW is suggesting avoiding Project activities between January 1 and August 31 to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors, Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.4 suggests avoiding vegetation removal from January 1 to September 15 and, if construction activities cannot be avoided in that time frame, the CDFW suggests a pre‐construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to Project‐related activities, while Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.4 requires a pre‐construction nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to construction‐related activities on site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5.4A as presented in the Draft EIR would satisfactorily reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant impact, and thus no change in the significance of the impact identified in the Draft EIR would occur. No revision to the Draft EIR is warranted.
Response to Comment 15‐4. The commenter stated development activities could cause death/injury or remove essential foraging habitat for the Crotch’s bumble bee; a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA.) Although Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed during the October 2019 site visit or subsequent California gnatcatcher surveys, due to potentially marginal suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee on site, the proposed Project will incorporate the following mitigation measure for potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Section 4.2.5.1 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
Of the 10 non‐listed special‐status species (Table 4.2.B), the site provides low to moderately suitable habitat for six: mesa horkelia, crotch bumble bee, California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, San Diego desert woodrat, and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse. No suitable habitat is present on site for the four remaining non‐listed species: Salt spring checkerbloom, rigid fringepod, California diplectronan caddisfly, and Southern California legless lizard.
131 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
The NOP comment letter from CDFW (December 10, 2019) did not specifically request an analysis of the Crotch’s Bumble Bee or any other specific species. On June 12, 2019, CDFW accepted a petition for Crotch’s bumble bee as a candidate species for listing under CESA. As a CESA candidate, the species is granted full protection of a threatened or endangered species under CESA. The Project's potential to substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, reduce and potentially seriously impair the viability of populations of Crotch’s bumble bee, and reduce the number and range of the species while taking into account the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands rely upon the habitat that occurs on‐site. Mitigation has been identified below to address potential impacts to the six non‐listed special status species. No suitable habitat is present on site for the four remaining non‐listed species: Salt spring checkerbloom, rigid fringepod, California diplectronan caddisfly, and Southern California legless lizard. These special‐status species have no official State or federal protection status and legal protection varies widely. Due to the low to moderate probability for occurrence of these species, relatively small Project footprint (6.5 acres), and isolated habitat conditions, potential Project effects to all other these non‐listed special interest species are less than significant. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce potential significant impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, Nevin’s barberry and other CDFW identified sensitive species.
4.2.5.1A Crotch’s bumble bee Survey. Within one year prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified biologist familiar with the species behavior and life history shall conduct surveys to determine the presence/absence of Crotch’s bumble bee. Surveys shall be conducted during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 and September 1 (Thorp et al. 1983). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. If the species is not detected, no further action is required. If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected, the following measures shall be implemented: a. The project applicant shall consult with CDFW with regard to survey results and continued coordination; b. The project applicant shall submit an avoidance and minimization plan to CDFW prior to the start of project activities. This plan shall be approved by CDFW prior to the start of work; and c. The project applicant shall coordinate with CDFW the delineation of access routes/staging areas and installation of barrier fencing to prevent impacts to any identified Crotch’s bumble bee nests and overwintering sites. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that the appropriate surveys and/or protective measures (as required) have been completed prior to the initiation of any vegetation removal or ground disturbance. 4.2.5.1B Sensitive Plant Survey. Prior to the start of vegetation removal or ground disturbance, a focused botanical survey for Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) shall be conducted within suitable habitat on site. The survey will be conducted according to
132 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
currently accepted protocol by a botanist or qualified biologist knowledgeable in the identification of the species. This species is evergreen and can be identified outside of the blooming period (March–June) using characteristics of leaves and plant structure, which can be detected year‐round. The objective of the survey will be to determine presence, absence, or potential occurrence of Nevin’s barberry and, if present, to quantify and map the extent and distribution of the species. If this species is not detected, no further mitigation is required.
If Nevin’s barberry is detected during the botanical survey, it will be flagged for avoidance to the extent feasible. If impact avoidance is not feasible, the impacted acreage supporting Nevin’s barberry and the number of individual plants impacted within the construction area will be quantified. If Nevin’s barberry is discovered in a project impact area, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS will be required prior to the impact occurring to develop an appropriate mitigation strategy. Relocation or seed collection may be an acceptable option to avoid significant impacts, as determined through consultation with the resource agencies. The number of individual plants impacted will be replaced at a minimum of 1:1.
The applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that the appropriate surveys, avoidance and/or replacement mitigation (as required) have been completed prior to the initiation of any vegetation removal or ground disturbance.
4.2.5.1C Sensitive Reptile Survey. Prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified biologist familiar with the California glossy snake and Coast horned lizard behavior and life history shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of these species on‐site. The survey shall be conducted during active season when the reptiles are most likely to be detected. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City the appropriate survey has been completed and the report submitted to CDFW prior to the start of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.
4.2.5.1D Small Mammal Survey. Prior to vegetation removal and/or grading, a qualified biologist familiar with mammal species behavior and life history of the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and the San Diego desert woodrat shall conduct specialized surveys to determine the presence/absence of each species. The survey shall be conducted during the appropriate time of day/year relative to each species. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW two weeks prior to initiation of Project activities. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City the appropriate survey has been completed and the report submitted to CDFW prior to the start of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.
4.2.5.1E Biological Monitoring. In the event any sensitive species is identified on‐site during pre‐construction survey; prior to the removal of vegetation and/or grading, the
133 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
applicant shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified biological monitor has been retained for the duration of all vegetation removal and/or grading activities. The qualified biologist shall be equipped to move any sensitive species out of harm’s way during vegetation removal and/or grading. Should no sensitive species be identified on‐site, no monitoring shall be required.
Impact Conclusion. The Project will not impact federal or State listed species or special‐status species including the federally listed as threatened, California Species of Special Concern coastal California gnatcatcher. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.1 through E, potential impacts to federal and State listed and non‐listed species are less than significant.
Corresponding changes will be made in Draft EIR, Table 1D (refer to Section 3.0 Errata in this Final EIR). As stated previously, this species was not detected during any of biological surveys. The inclusion of the precautionary mitigation does not identify a potential new significant impact or increase the severity of an identified impact.
Response to Comment 15‐5. The commenter states development of the site could potentially will impact two special‐status plant species: Nevin’s barberry (CESA endangered) and the mesa horkelia.
Habitat on‐site is considered to be of low to moderate value for the subject species because the site is small in size, highly degraded, and isolated from other similar habitats in the region as a result of extensive surrounding development. The habitat conditions on site may provide low to moderate suitable habitat for a few individuals of these species, but would not support their long‐term, continued existence due to the reasons described above. During the October 2019 field survey, neither of the plant species cited by the commenter was identified within the project limits (Biological Resources Assessment, Appendix A: List of Plant and Wildlife Species Observed), nor were the species observed during the field visits for the focused presence/absence survey coastal California gnatcatcher.
In most cases it is not standard practice to estimate specific numbers of individuals of lower level special‐status species in CEQA documents such as mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneate var. puberula). Such estimates are sometimes, but not always made for listed or endangered species, or some plant populations where it is practical to generate that information. Furthermore, it is not necessary or particularly helpful to provide such as detailed presence/absence information to decision‐makers. Existing and developing regional habitat conservation plans including the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan, North Fontana Interim Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Policy, and other local conservation and preservation plans are designed for the long‐term conservation of these and other species associated with viable scale broom scrub habitat. In this case, the description provided for mesa horkelia is considered adequate.
CDFW’s description of Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) does not mention the fact the species is evergreen and can be identified outside of the blooming period (March–June) using characteristics of leaves and plant structure, which can be detected year‐round. As previously noted, Nevin’s barberry was not observed during any of the field visits to the project site. However, to reduce potential project‐related impacts to Nevin’s barberry, see Response to Comment 15‐4 for mitigation.
134 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
The inclusion of the precautionary mitigation does not identify a potential new significant impact or increase the severity of an identified impact.
Response to Comment 15‐6. As noted above in the Response for Comment 15‐5, on‐site habitat is considered to be of low to moderate value for the subject species because the site is small in size, highly degraded, and isolated from other similar habitats in the region as a result of extensive surrounding development. The habitat conditions on site may provide habitat for a few individuals of these species, but would not support their long‐term, continued existence due to the reasons described above. During field surveys, none of the animal species cited by the CDFW was identified within the Project limits (Biological Resources Assessment, Appendix A: List of Plant and Wildlife Species Observed).
It is not standard practice to estimate specific numbers of individuals of lower level special‐status species in CEQA documents. Such estimates are sometimes, but not always made for listed or endangered species, or some plant populations where it is practical to generate that information. Furthermore, it is not necessary or particularly helpful to provide such detailed information such as presence/absence survey data for these non‐listed species to decision‐makers in cases. To address the commenter’s concerns, the Draft EIR has been revised to require surveys for sensitive plant and animal species prior to the removal of vegetation and/or on‐site grading activities. Due to the low probability of these species occurring on‐site, the implementation of the precautionary mitigation is adequate and would not alter the significance of the impact identified in the Draft EIR would occur.
Response to Comment 15‐7. The commenter states the proposed Project may provide sufficient habitat for the burrowing owl. The commenter states a pre‐construction burrowing owl survey to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl is required to fully address this issue. Section 4.5.4 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce potential significant impacts to nesting birds and the burrowing owl:
4.2.5.4A Pre‐construction Nesting Bird Survey. Vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1, or January 1 for raptors, through September 15). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If an active avian nest is identified, a biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction activities. Construction activities must occur outside of a 300‐foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer may be expanded to up to 500 feet from the active nest. The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt construction if it occurs within an established avian buffer or if new nesting activity occurs and a new buffer is required. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur or resume.
135 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Upon completion of construction monitoring, the biological monitor shall prepare a report of findings documenting if any impacts to active avian nests occurred.
4.2.5.4B Pre‐construction Burrowing Owl Survey. A pre‐construction burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) survey will be conducted no more than 30 days prior to earth‐disturbing activities to determine whether burrowing owls are present on the project site. The pre‐construction survey will be consistent with the take avoidance survey methodology outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. a. If the survey results are negative, construction activities (e.g., vegetation grubbing and grading) must begin within 30 days from the last survey visit or an updated survey will be required. In the event grading occurs after 30 days have passed, the pre‐construction survey shall be repeated. b. If survey results are positive, occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season of February 1 through August 31, unless a qualified biological can verify through non‐invasive methods that either the owls have not begun egg laying and incubation or that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent flight. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged, construction in the area may resume. c. In the event occupied burrows are identified on‐site, the applicant shall prepare a burrowing owl mitigation plan, which will be submitted to the CDFW for review and approval. The burrowing owl mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall include appropriate measures to offset permanent project impacts to occupied burrows. d. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that the appropriate survey and/or avoidance measures identified in the CDFW approved burrowing owl mitigation plan have been completed, established and/or funded (as appropriate) prior to vegetation removal and/or ground disturbance operations. e. The project construction documents shall identify appropriate prohibitions on the on‐site use of rodenticides for the duration of ground disturbance and construction operations. The inclusion of this prohibition shall be confirmed by the City during the review/approval of construction documents. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that the appropriate survey and/or avoidance measures (as required) have been completed prior to and/or during ground disturbance.
Impact Conclusion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.5.4A and B would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and burrowing owls to a less than significant impact.
Corresponding revisions will be made to Table 1.D to address this revision (refer to Section 3.0 Errata in this Final EIR). The identification of additional mitigation to address a previously identified impact
136 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
does not represent considerable new information, a significant change in an existing impact or a new impact warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 15‐8. Comment 15‐8 discusses the SB 35 application for development submitted to the City of Upland and the CEQA exemption that would apply to the proposed development in Upland if that application is approved. The comment states that cumulative impacts associated with the possible future development of 3.0 acres in Upland should be discussed in the EIR. Government Code Section 65913.4 provides, among other things, that a housing project that is entitled to streamlined ministerial approval “shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public resources Code). . . .” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4(c)(2).) This exemption is noted in the Draft EIR at Section 1.2, page 1‐1. The Draft EIR considers the cumulative impacts of the potential future development in Upland, consistent with section 15355 of the CEQA guidelines. The cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and the reasonably foreseeable future development on the 3.0 acres located in the City of Upland are addressed in Appendix C‐1, Biological Resources Assessment. Like the Project site, the 3.0 acres in Upland is isolated, highly degraded by past activities, does not function as a local or regional wildlife corridor, and possesses limited habitat value. The cumulative impact of the proposed Project when considered with surrounding land uses, including the foreseeable future development on the 3.0 acres in Upland, will be less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
137 Letter 16
June 15, 2020
Ref. DOC 5711119
Ms. Jennifer Davis Contract Planner City of Claremont 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Ms. Davis:
DEIR Response for The Commons Project
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project on April 29, 2020. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 21. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated December 19, 2010 (copy enclosed) still apply to the subject project with the following updated information:
Executive Summary, page 1-2, second paragraph – The project is described as 27 single family residences, 16-1 20 townhomes, 15 apartment units and 5,000 square feet of retail space. Based on this project description, the expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site is 14,765 gallons per day, after the structure on the project site is demolished.
All other information concerning Districts’ facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717 or at [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Adriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department
AR:ar
Enclosure
cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard
DOC 5759690.D21 c::::::> Robert C. Ferrante SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Chief Engineer and General Manager 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Converting Waste Into Resources (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org
December 19 , 20 I 9
Ref. DOC 5427784
Jennifer Davis, Contract Planner City of Claremont 207 Harvard A venue Claremont, CA 91 711
Dear Ms . Davis:
NOP Response for The Commons Specific Plan
The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Co unty (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Repo11 (NOP) for the subject proj ect on November 11 , 2019. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 21 . We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will di scharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, fo r conveyance to either or both the Di stricts' San Antonio Trunk Sewer, located in Towne Avenue just no11h of Foothill Boulevard, or the Claremont Outfall Trunk Sewer, located in Arrow Highway at Mountain Avenue. The Districts' 12-inch diameter San Antonio Trunk Sewer has a capacity of 3.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.8 mgd when last measured in 20 I 4. The Districts' 12-inch diameter Claremont Outfall Trunk Sewer has a capacity of 3. 7 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of l mgd when last measured in 2014.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 261.1 mgd, or the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, which has a capacity of 15 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 8.6 mgd .
3. The expected increase in average wastewater fl ow from the project site, described in the notice as a mixed-use development, including 27 single-family homes, 68 residential townhomes, 15 flats, and 5,000 square feet of retail shops, is 23,785 gallons per day, after the structure on the project site is demolished. For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits, select Will Serve Program, and scroll down to click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting ( directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities . This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project. Payment of a connection fee will
DOC 54295 71.D2 I Pri nted on •~ Recycled Paper t.: Ms. Jennifer Davis -2- December 19, 2019
be required before this proj ect is permitted to discharge to the Districts ' Sewerage System. For more info rmation and a copy of the Co nn ection Fee in fo rmati on Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, und er Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determinin g the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, th e Districts will determine th e user category (e.g. Cond om inium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or antici pated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the developm ent. Fo r more specific information regard in g the connection fee application procedure and fees , the deve loper shoul d contact the Districts' Wastewater Fee Public Co unter at (562) 908-4288 , extension 2727.
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment faci lities are based on the regional growth forecast ado pted by the So uthern Cal ifo rni a Association of Governments (SCAG). Specifi c policies included in th e development of the SCAG regional growth fo recast are incorporated into clean ai r plans, whi ch are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Dese11 Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of Districts' fac ilities mu st be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth fo recast for the counties of Los Ange les, Orange, San Bern ardin o, Ri vers ide, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to leve ls associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG . As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater servi ce, but is to advi se the developer that th e Di stricts intend to provide this se rvice up to the levels that are legal ly permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existi ng capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities .
ff yo u have any questions, please contact the und ersign ed at (562) 908-4288, extension 27 17.
Very truly yo urs ,
Adriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Faci lities Pl anning Depa11ment
AR:dc cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard
DOC 5429571.D2 I F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
141 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 16: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Response to Comment 16‐1. The City acknowledges the Districts’ comment that the information related on the Districts’ facilities in the Draft EIR is correct and current. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary as a result of the comment.
142 Letter 17
Comment on Draft EIR, The Commons Jennifer Jaffe Claremont resident homeowner June 15, 2020
Careful reading of all submissions reveals that the conclusions of the Draft EIR do not adequately reveal or address numerous concerns and assertions raised in comments at the Scoping meeting and in comments submitted in response to NOP, as evidenced in: -The Executive Summary and following detailed responses 17-1 -Table 1-B Scoping Meeting Comments -NOP Responses: A-2: Notice of Preparation and Comments 1.3 Issues Addressed and Areas of Controversy to Be Resolved
This is how it can be concluded that the proposed project is appropriate to the site.
One example: NOP comments City of Upland Development Services Department Planning Division (start pg. 41/80) clearly state fundamental incompatibility of the whole project, without distinction of Upland or Claremont portion. But, pg. 20/520 of DEIR states “Note, these comments primarily related to the development being proposed in Upland, which is no longer considered part of this project as explained above…” 17-2 NOP comments City of Upland Development Services Department Planning Division (start pg. 41/80) “The proposed Project is inconsistent with the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in multiple respects in that all types of residential uses at the at the proposed site location within the City of Upland, violates the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan …All types of residential uses are not permitted in this Compatibility Zone….”
After several pages of detailed description of incompatibility and consequences if developed, concludes with
“In summary, the proposed Project is entirely inconsistent with the established and developed 17-3 surrounding land use and applicable Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and other related City of Upland ordinance and regulations”
Additionally, Appendix E-2, Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites, prepared July, 2017, omits Cable Airport crashes 9/17/18, 5/1/19, 6/15/19, 11/7/19 (fatal). 17-4
This is an inappropriate site for residential use. Cannot be mitigated away. Insulation cannot mitigate 17-5 when people need to open their windows, socialize, be outside. Will discourage vital, or even livable, community.
Mitigations cannot change the noise, pollution, and safety impacts of proximity to Cable Airport, major arterials, and isolation from any land uses that support residential community life. Only consider 17-6 alternatives that retain existing/historic General Plan and commercial highway zoning, or consideration of change to alternative Business/Industrial Park, to continue the same designation that abuts the project area north, west, and east. F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 17: Jennifer Jaffe Response to Comment 17‐1. The commenter is stating the Draft EIR did not address the comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), comments received during the public scoping meeting, and areas of controversy. The commenter does not provide the specific comments that were not addressed.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 requires a lead agency to prepare a NOP to notify a responsible agency, a trustee agency, the Office of Planning and Research and interested parties an EIR is being prepared for a proposed Project and solicit information relative to the environmental effects of the proposed Project. A public scoping meeting may also be held to introduce the proposed Project to the public and to solicit input as to the environmental effects of the project that needs to be analyzed in the EIR.
Draft EIR Section 1, Executive Summary, Table 1.A provides a general summary of NOP comments received by the City during the NOP review period and identifies in which section of the EIR each specific NOP comment has been addressed. Table 1.B provides a summary of the comments received in the public scoping meeting and it also identifies in which section of the EIR each specific comment has been addressed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 17‐2 and 17‐3. The commenter references a NOP letter provided by the City of Upland, which states the proposed Project is inconsistent with the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CALUCP) and the City of Upland’s ordinances and regulations.
At the time the NOP was published the property to the east, located in the City of Upland was a part of the Project. Subsequent to the NOP the developer of The Commons who also owns the property to the east submitted to Upland an application under SB35 for 48 townhouses. This fact is provided in Table 1.A in the Draft EIR. Therefore, and for the reasons explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project analyzed in the Draft EIR is located in the City of Claremont and not Upland. The comments by the City of Upland regarding the project within its City limits are no longer relevant to the analysis in the EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 17‐4. The commenter states the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis for Claremont Commons and Nearby Sites, prepared July, 2017, omits Cable Airport crashes 9/17/18, 5/1/19, 6/15/19, and 11/7/19 (fatal).
The commenter is correct the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis did not include the listed aircraft crashes associated with the Cable Airport. The crashes occurred after the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis was prepared. Draft EIR Section 4.6, Hazards, Subsection 4.6.5.1.1, acknowledges “The accident rates were developed using annual operations data of Cable Airport and the historical record of accidents in the airport’s vicinity.” However, that statement is prefaced by a footnote that states “The historical data used did not include the crash on June 15, 2019, where an aircraft bound for Torrance from Cable Airport crashed into a two‐story house in Upland. The pilot was killed, one person suffered life‐ threatening injuries, and two others had minor injuries. Source: https://abc7.com/3‐injured‐in‐plane‐ crash‐near‐cable‐airport‐in‐upland/5348196/ accessed November 20, 2019.”
145 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Please refer to Response to Comment 2‐1 for a discussion on additional Cable Airport aircraft crashes that have occurred since notification of the NOP. The added text does not constitute a significant change in the analysis in the Draft EIR. The potential of a plane crash on site still exists and the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Response to Comment 17‐5. The commenter states residential is an improper land use for the site and impacts cannot be mitigated away including requiring insulation in the buildings and keeping windows closed to reduce noise. The commenter states that the outdoor environs of the development will not be a livable place for socializing and outdoor activities.
See Response to Comment 10‐1. The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion on residential being an improper land use for the Project site. The comment will be provided to the City’s decision‐ makers for their consideration prior to taking action on the proposed Project.
Please refer to Response to Comment 5‐2 pertaining to outdoor noise level analysis on the Project site during operation.
The commenter does not provide substantial evidence that Mitigation Measure 4.9.1B would not be effective. Mitigation Measure 4.9.1B specifies the applicant must have a Final Acoustics study be prepared prior to building permits being issued that will prove the interior living spaces of all residential dwelling units would meet the Claremont’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed and confirms that aircraft‐related interior noise levels would be no greater than 40 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed for interior living spaces of all residential units within the proposed Project. The mitigation is proposed to ensure that noise standards can be met or building permits cannot be issued. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 17‐6. The commenter states mitigations cannot change the noise, pollution, and safety impacts of proximity to Cable Airport, major arterials, and isolation from any land uses that support residential community life. Only consider alternatives that retain existing/historic General Plan and commercial highway zoning, or consideration of change to alternative Business/Industrial Park, to continue the same designation that abuts the Project area north, west, and east.
The commenter is stating that the mitigation cannot change the noise, pollution, and safety impacts of the proposed Project. The commenter is partially correct in her statement as some of the mitigation measures (i.e., Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A, 4.6.1B, and 4.6.1C) are disclosures and do not actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A, 4.6.1B, and 4.6.1C disclose that the Project site is in the vicinity of an airport and onsite residents would be exposed to airport related operations. The Draft EIR, on pages 4.6‐17 and 4.6‐18, also acknowledges that implementation of these specific mitigation measures does not preclude or reduce the potential impact of airplane crashes occurring on the Project site causing injury/death to onsite residents. Finally, the analysis concludes that since no mitigation measures exist to reduce impacts a significant and unavoidable impact has been determined; as such, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation Measures pertaining to noise were not required as noise impacts were not significant. Mitigation Measure pertaining to air quality emissions were not required as air quality impacts were not significant.
146 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
The commenter also advocates for consideration of an alternatives that include the existing land use designation of highway commercial (analyzed as Alternative #2: No Project, Existing General Plan and Zoning/Approved Commercial/Office Project in Section 6 of the Draft EIR), or business/industrial park (Alternative #4: Business Park analyzed in Section 6 of the Draft EIR). The comments will be provided to the City decision‐makers in their consideration before taking action on the proposed Project. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
147 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
148 Letter 18
Jennifer Davis City of Claremont 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 [email protected]
The Commons Draft EIR Comments:
I was disappointed that request to the City Manager and Council to extend the comment period due to limited notice and time for review due to COVID 19 was denied. As a result, many did not know the Draft EIR and Specific Plan were 18-1 available. Many are hearing about the Notice of Availability from fellow community members much too late to provide comment. There was no public meeting to share the Specific Plan details and only extremely limited public notice of the Draft EIR availability (no mention in the Courier, the City Manager’s Weekly Letter, the front page of the City website, etc). Such notice may not be required by law, but it is also not the Claremont way.
I will preface these comments by saying that it is not good planning to put any housing at this site given the public safety 18-2 risk and noise due to the airport. The central park and parking that are planned to run through the center of the development as an easement does little to mitigate these concerns.
With this said, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments primarily focused on site sustainability:
Specific Plan Section 5.7, Page 5-26, Paragraph 5:
"In addition to meeting these standards, this Specific Plan will require all buildings to be equivalent to a LEED certified design."
As we have seen, to escape the rigors and cost of LEED certification, developers will often share that CalGreen is equivalent to LEED or that there is some way to determine LEED equivalency without going through the LEED certification scoring process. This is faulty logic at best. Sustainable Claremont members contacted a US Green Building Council representative to ask about LEED equivalency. They responded by sharing that Title 24 or the state building code doesn't come close to even the lowest LEED certification; the USGBC representative shared that following Title 24 will achieve only 6 of the 40 points required for the lowest LEED certification. LEED building certification, and not 18- equivalency or some fraction thereof, is what the City should require. Our recommendation is to remove “to be 3 equivalent to” in the above sentence. Further, whole site planning tools like the Sustainable Sites Initiative could be used to ensure both building and landscape sustainability are integrated.
References:
General Plan Policy 2.1.1 “Encourage sustainable development that incorporates green building best practices and involves the reuse of previously developed property and/or vacant sites with a built-up area.” (Policy 2.1.1)
General Plan Goal 5.14: Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects. (Goal. 5.14)
General Plan Policy 5.14.1 Facilitate the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in both private and public projects.
General Plan Policy 5.14.2 Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code. General Plan Policy 5.14.3 Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality, economic vitality and social benefit through the design, construction and operation of 18-3 the built environment. Cont.
Specific Plan Section 5.7, Page 5-27:
In this section it states “that it is reasonable to strive” towards going beyond Title 24 standards for energy efficiency and there is mention of solar panels but not how much will currently be required to build into the project. There are no goals 18-4 or policies stated for net zero energy unless the project is built after 2023 when it is required by law. The City should review the General Plan and Sustainability Plan for Netzero energy goals and policies and develop the project accordingly.
Specific Plan Section 5.7.2, Page 5-29
Water Efficiency: While it is good that the developer will "minimize turf areas within the community and use drought- tolerant plants that require minimal or no irrigation, there is no mention of following the city's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 16.131 of the Claremont Municipal Code). This project landscape must be designed with efficient irrigation and with a water budget. Referencing our WELO in the specific plan is a great way to ensure that 18-5 water conservation in the landscape isn’t an afterthought. The plant palette also leaves much to be desired. A higher percentage of California native plants to provide habitat and replace some of native plant habitat being removed should be considered.
Water Quality 5.7.5 - The Specific Plan calls out NPDES post construction pollutant requirements but doesn't state anything about the need to comply with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance. Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Order No. R4-2012-0175 states that where projects are over and acre in size applicants are required to 18-6 prepare and implement a Low Impact Development (LID) plan. While it is mentioned in the EIR, there is no reference to the need for a LID Plan in the specific plan.
The EIR suggests that the stormwater will be managed with one single concrete capture and infiltration gallery. The geotechnical analysis in the EIR suggests that there may be incompatibility with large scale water catchment devices due to soil settling. Distributed landscape features like bioswales and water catchment devices like cisterns can capture stormwater throughout the project site, reducing the need such a large central stormwater best management practice. Rainfall captured throughout the site could be used to water landscapes offsetting the demand on constrained water resources. 18-7 References:
General Plan Policy 2.1.3 “Encourage development that incorporates green building practices to conserve natural resources as part of sustainable development practices.”
General Plan Policy “Encourage new developments to incorporate drought tolerant and native landscaping that is pedestrian friendly, attractive and consistent with the landscaped character of Claremont.”
Impact 4.7.5.4 Flood Hazard, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones
Finally, A Dam Safety Action Classification II rating was given to San Antonio Dam in 2008. A "DSAC II rating is given to dams where failure could begin during normal operations or be initiated as the consequence of an event. The likelihood of failure from one of these occurrences, prior to remediation, is too high to assure public safety; or the combination of life or economic consequences with probability of failure is very high." A dam breach would be catastrophic and any new 18-8 development in a potential inundation zone should take the dam condition and climate change into account. While no one expects the dam to fail anytime soon, climate scientists are predicting an increase in extreme precipitation. (see pg 12, California Climate Change Assessment, LA Region). Some recent climate predictions by UCLA scientists suggest that 100-year storm events could become 30 year events. Like much of the Claremont at that elevation, the Commons site is in an 8' inundation zone (see pg 99 Claremont Hazard Mitigation Plan). The EIR concludes “it is reasonable to conclude the Project site is adequately protected from potential dam inundation to the degree that other surrounding developed 18-8 properties are protected.” I don’t see the logic in this statement – a project shouldn’t be deemed appropriate or safe Cont. because similar adjacent projects have been built. I would encourage reconsidering this potential impact and mitigation measures that could better protect the public.
Appendix C -1 – Biological Resources Report
Finally, just a quick mention that the San Diego desert woodrat likely occurs on site, while the EIR states the occurrence probability is Low to Moderate. This species is not uncommon in our area and has been identified at the nearby Bernard 18-9 Field Station by Pomona College biologists. Wood rat nests can be seen on the property site from adjacent roadways. Consider consulting with field station director Dr. Wallace M. Meyer III at 909-621-8577 for more information.
Sincerely, Drew Ready 310 West Radcliffe Drive F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
152 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 18: Drew Ready Response to Comment 18‐1. The commenter expresses disappointment on the manner the availability of the Draft EIR was made to the public. The commenter opines that City staff failed to widely publicize the comment period and failed to include publication on the City Manager’s Weekly Update, on in The Courier and that no public meeting was held to share details of the Specific Plan.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15087(a), the City is required to provide Notice of the availability the Draft EIR, by at least one of the following procedures:
Publication at least one time by the public agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project, or Posting of notice by the public agency on and off the site in the area where the project is to be located, or Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, CEQA Guidelines § 15105(a) requires a review period, “. . . the public review period shall not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period, not less than 30 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse” The Draft EIR review period extended from April 29, 2020 through June 15, 2020 (48‐days.) The Notice of Availability (NOA was published and sent out via U.S. Mail and email to interested parties and residents and businesses surrounding the proposed Project (beyond the 300‐foot radius required by CEQA), all interested agencies, all those who attended the community meeting and left their contact details, and approximately 50 additional interested public. All told, almost 200 people were notified of the proposed Project. The NOA was also distributed to local, regional and State and the State Clearinghouse, was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office from April 30, 2020 to June 01, 2020, and was made available on the City of Claremont’s Website, https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/government/departments‐divisions/planning‐division/ceqa‐ documents for the duration of the public review period. The active weblink contained not only the Draft EIR, but all appendices, including the April 2020 Specific Plan (Appendix I.). At this time, the weblink remains active and fully accessible. The City provided adequate and appropriate notice of the Draft EIR as evidenced by the public comments received from local and State agencies and members of the public. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary based on the comment.
Response to Comment 18‐2. The commenter contends development of the housing on the site “is not good planning” due to the public safety risk and noise associated with Cable Airport. Also, the commenter states the central open space does not mitigate for these potential impacts.
Development within the central open space is restricted as a condition of the existing easement and is not represented in the Draft EIR as mitigation for any airport safety or airport noise impact. Airport safety and noise impacts were exhaustively addressed by the City in the Draft EIR. The issues raised airport safety have been previously addressed in Responses to Comments 10‐1, 11‐7 through 11‐10, and 12‐1. The commenter’s responses related to airport noise issues have been addressed in
153 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Comments 10‐2, 11‐14 through 11‐16, 12‐1, and 12‐4 through 12‐5. The commenter’s statements will be fully considered by the City during future public hearings for the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 18‐3. The commenter expresses a concern on whether the proposed Project will be LEED certified as stated in the Specific Plan (Draft EIR, Appendix I). The commenter cites the Specific Plan and provides a recommendation to guarantee the proposed Project achieves LEED certified design.
All development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the California Title 24 standards in effect at the time building permits are issued, the City of Claremont’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and Sustainable City Plan, whichever is most stringent. In addition to meeting these standards, the Specific Plan will require all buildings to be equivalent to a LEED certified design. Both Title 24 and LEED include a menu‐list of requirements. It is reasonable to conclude the LEED equivalency requirement will allow the City to mandate Project features beyond those identified in Title 24, thereby ensuring LEED level design. The City of Claremont would hire a plan checker that has LEED certification to go through the checklist during plan check. The developer would be required to pay a fee to go through the United States Green Building Code (USGBC) to receive certification. The City would require proof from the developer that certification was received prior to approval of final plan check.
The commenter does not raise any issue relative to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revision is required.
Response to Comment 18‐4. The commenter cites the energy efficiency discussion contained in the Specific Plan, specifically regarding the provision of solar panels. The commenter’s issue of concern has been previously addressed in the Response to Comment 11‐6.
The commenter does not raise any issue relative to the analysis contained in or the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revision is required.
Response to Comment 18‐5. The commenter states the proposed Project should be designed, “…. with efficient irrigation and with a water budget” and provides an opinion on the design, type and amount of landscape which should be provided. The proposed Project would comply with the requirements of Title 16, Chapter 16.131 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) of the City’s Municipal Code to increase water use efficiency. While the commenter prefers to have these City requirements identified in the Specific Plan; as is the case for other development project in the City, the final landscape plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable water efficiency requirements during the routine review process. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that water‐ efficient irrigation systems and drought‐tolerant landscaping would be installed on the Project site. The commenter’s preference regarding the stated plant palette is noted and may be considered prior to finalization and approval of the Project’s landscape plan by the City.
The commenter does not raise any issue relative to the analysis contained in or the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revision is required.
154 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Response to Comment 18‐6. The commenter states the Specific Plan does not include a discussion of compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development Ordinance. The commenter does state the Draft EIR includes such a discussion (see Draft EIR Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality.)
The commenter does not raise any issue relative to the analysis contained in or the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no revision is required.
Response to Comment 18‐7. The commenter states the stormwater infiltration feature detailed in the Draft EIR may be incompatible for the site and recommends the use of landscape features that would reduce the need to offset large central stormwater retention features.
The Draft EIR identifies Typical Standard Condition and Regulation HYD‐3, which requires submittal of a Final Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (Final SUSMP or LID Plan) to the City of Claremont for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The approved plan, will specify low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) to address stormwater capture, infiltration and treatment. As appropriate, the City may identify alternative features that achieve the appropriate level of stormwater management. The BMPs specified in the Final LID Plan will be incorporated into the final grading and development plans submitted to the City of Claremont for review and approval.
It is reasonable to conclude the location, type, and extent of any stormwater management feature will satisfy all applicable functional requirements. As the grading and development plans will contain the features approved by the City, it is also reasonable to conclude on‐site stormwater will be adequately and appropriately installed and managed. No revision of the Draft EIR is required.
Response to Comment 18‐8. The commenter identifies the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2008 Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) (DASC II), which is given to dams where failure could begin during normal operations or be initiated as a consequence of an event.
Based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Dam Safety Program (USACE 2012), the San Antonio Dam received a Dam Safety Action Class II (or DSAC II) rating in December 2008, based on a risk analysis completed in May 2007. A DSAC II rating is given to dams where failure could begin during normal operations or be initiated as the consequence of an event. The likelihood of failure from one of these occurrences, prior to remediation, is too high to assure public safety; or the combination of life or economic consequences with probability of failure is very high. San Antonio Dam received a DSAC II rating because of the potential for: 1) failure from foundation seepage and piping, 2) failure of intake or channel walls under the maximum design earthquake scenario, and 3) failure from overtopping of a maximum probable flood. The DSAC II rating does not indicate that dam failure is occurring. Rather, this rating indicates the Corps has identified dam safety issues that do not meet industry standards and the risk to public safety is unacceptable.
As stated in the Draft EIR (page 4.7‐27, Hydrology and Water Quality), under a worst‐case scenario during extremely heavy and persistent rainfall in conjunction with dam failure, the Project site could be covered in floodwaters between 7 and 8 feet deep; however, the hazard at the Project site may be less due to the construction of Interstate 210, which is located north of the Project site and constructed below adjacent grades, and thus, would act as a large cut‐off trench. The potential for
155 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
dam failure is considered remote and would likely only occur during extremely severe seismic shaking conditions at the same time the dam is near capacity, which is rare and limited only to extended periods of heavy rain. As a result of San Antonio Dam’s DSAC II rating, the USACE has developed a plan to implement the following Interim Risk Reduction Measures, or IRRMs:
Remote monitoring Inspection and monitoring Update Emergency Action Plan Pre‐position materials Coordinate with local interests/conduct table‐top exercise Improve flood mapping downstream of the dam
City General Plan Policies 6‐6.1 and 6‐6.2 require the City to work with the USACE and Los Angeles County to ensure dam structures are upgraded as needed to best withstand earthquakes and prevent dam inundation and to encourage regular maintenance of flood‐control facilities. There is not reasonable certainty the future potential conditions predicted by the commenter will occur. It is reasonable to conclude that issues related to the integrity of the dam, included necessary assessment, remediation and/or repairs will be addressed by the USACE in a manner sufficient to maintain the safe operations. It is also reasonable to conclude that the recessed Interstate 210 would more than likely reduce the risk of Project site inundation due to dam failure. No revision of the Draft EIR is required.
Response to Comment 18‐9. The commenter suggests the San Diego desert woodrat, a California species of special concern, likely occurs on site. This classification is assigned to animals with vulnerable or seriously declining populations. These species have no official State or federal protection status and legal protection varies widely.
Please refer to the Response to Comments 15‐7 and 15‐8. Per the Draft EIR (Table 4.2.B: Special Status Species Summary) suitable habitat (coastal sage scrub habitat with cactus patches) is present on‐site; therefore, there is a low‐moderate chance of this species occurring within the limits of development. The Draft EIR (Table 4.2.A: Plant and Animal Species Observed) identifies the plant and animal species identified during October 25, 2019 biological resource survey. The San Diego desert woodrat was not identified on‐site during this survey. While the commenter states this species was sited at the Bernard Field Station, the site is separated from that location by intervening commercial, residential, and roadway features.
As this species was not observed on‐site during the biological resource survey, and due to the low to moderate probability for occurrence of these species, relatively small Project footprint, and isolated habitat conditions, impacts related to this species were determined to be less than significant. No revision of the Draft EIR is warranted.
156 Letter 19
Chris Graham
From: J Davis
Mr Ready revised his letter. It is attached. Goldwater email below.
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Helaine Goldwater
------
TO: Jennifer Davis
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE COMMONS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.
State law (Section 21670) says that the goals of land use planning around airports are to prevent interference with airport operations and to minimize hazards to people. I am looking at the EIR in relation to these goals.
1. The EIR claims that there's little risk of a plane crash, but it doesn't reconcile that with 19-1 the official Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan's statement that 20% of crashes occur in this zone. It should do so. 2. It doesn't quantify the risk of and object to the parking of fuel-carrying autos along the edges of the avigation easement where aircraft may be most likely to crash-land. It should. This analysis should include situations in which emergency vehicles will need 19-2 the avigation easement roads to reach their targets but will be hindered or blocked by burning autos. 3. It fails to analyze research on the incidence of respiratory illnesses near airports or to measure the exhaust fumes and particles. It analyzes the CO2 from ground traffic but not 19-3 from aircraft. It should do both. The airport-related exhaust is a health hazard. 1 4. It should explicitly address children's particular vulnerability to high noise levels and exhaust. Exhaust from leaded fuel, the only type available at Cable Airport, is especially 19-4 toxic to fetuses and children. 5. It fails to criticize the proposal's lack of indoor play and social space in a development where aircraft emergency landings, noise and exhaust in the outdoor spaces are health 19-5 hazards. Mitigation by providing such indoor spaces should be required. 6. It should recognize that, although the physical structure of the proposed buildings isn't high enough to interfere with airport operations, residents will inevitably complain about the airport and solicit official pressure to reduce or redirect flights, or that the trees will 19-6 attract birds and their predators who may collide with planes, and that those will interfere with airport operations. This foreseeable and inevitable interference with the airport should be evaluated. 7. It fails to assess the financial consequences to our City of substituting housing for commercial space which could have produced sales tax. The proposed development drastically reduces the amount of retail space compared to the existing zone. While previously the viability of retail at this location was questionable because there weren't enough "rooftops" (residences) nearby, large residential developments have been built 19-7 more recently east of Monte Vista and south of Foothill, and more are in the works. Sales tax potential under different retail scenarios should be analyzed. In addition, the discussion of alternative developments should compare the sales tax prospects of each alternative under current and future nearby conditions affecting the success of retail. 8. Water flow and drainage should be evaluated under conditions of maximum precipitation. If the amount of precipitation during the reference survey was not the 19-8 maximum precipitation ever experienced at this site and uphill of it, it's insufficient and needs to be re-done during maximum and sustained downpour. 9. The decision not to evaluate impact on City parks appears to be based on the assumption that residents of The Commons will use the park areas in The Commons. This is a faulty assumption. Because of physical danger, extreme noise and air pollution, residents are 19-9 unlikely to use on-site park areas, at least not for more than a short time. Impact on City recreation facilities should be evaluated, using the assumption that residents will avoid the on-site parks and use other recreation areas instead. 10. The hazard warning notice to prospective buyers should be given to prospective renters as well, and it should be more specific regarding the hazards from crash landings, 19-10 excessive noise and leaded fuel pollution. 11. Roadway and industrial noise should be analyzed in combination with aircraft noise, not only with one another. Foothill Blvd is a busy street, with loud truck and bus traffic as well as cars. Noisy diesel trucks serving the new warehouse on Foothill at Central will 19-11 go up and down Monte Vista. Much of this will occur at the same time that aircraft are taking off from the runway. Maximum noise impact will be greater than the draft EIR anticipates. 12. It's inaccurate to describe this project as walkable or bicyclable. There's too much noise, 19-12 exhaust and street traffic, and no nearby residential streets or storefronts. 13. The project's lack of commitment to all-electric cooking and heating, to NetZero and to on-site storage of temporarily surplus energy generated on-site, should be addressed as 19-13 mitigatable defects. 14. It should explain what will happen to the culvert under Foothill Blvd and to the water 19-14 which flows through it. 15. Rejecting application of the Cable Airport Land Used Compatibility Plan doesn't fulfill State law's intent to minimize noise and safety hazards. That Plan should be used. 19-15
2 Thank you for your consideration,
Helaine Goldwater 2331 Coalinga Ct Claremont, Ca 91711 [email protected] 909-624-3197 home 909-226-7496 cel
15.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
3 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
160 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 19: Helaine Goldwater Response to Comment 19‐1.The commenter claims that the EIR does not reconcile that the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan statement that 20 percent of crashes occur in this zone.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Responses to Comment 10‐1 and 11‐12 that explains the 2011 Handbook was used in analyzing potential affects to plane crashes on the Project site as well as the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis (AIRA) that was prepared specifically for the proposed Project. The AIRA concluded that there would be a 27 in 1 million chance of an aircraft accident occurring on the site that would generate injuries or fatalities to residents. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐2. The commenter claims that the EIR does not quantify the risk of and object to the parking of fuel‐carrying autos along the edges of the avigation easement where aircraft may likely crash‐land.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐12 that explains the 2011 Handbook was used in analyzing potential affects to plane crashes on the Project site as well as the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis (AIRA) that was prepared specifically for the proposed Project. The AIRA concluded that there would be a 27 in 1 million chance of an aircraft accident occurring on the site that would generate injuries or fatalities to residents. These odds were calculated on the design of the proposed Project including parking spot design within the 150‐foot swath of land in the middle of the Project site. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comments 19‐2, 19‐3, 19‐4, and 19‐5. The commenter indicates that the EIR should include analysis of exhaust generated by Cable Airport Operations on fetuses and children as well as vulnerability to high noise levels generated by Cable Airport operations.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐3 where noise levels and airport generated exhaust are discussed. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐6. The commenter opines that residents will inevitably complain about the airport and solicit official pressure to reduce or redirect flights, or that trees will attract birds and their predators who may collide with planes. The commenter requests that these foreseeable and inevitable interference with the airport should be evaluated.
The EIR, in Section 4.6, provides analysis on the potential impacts to Project site residents due to adjacent Cable Airport Operations. The EIR takes into consideration the potential for accidents to occur on the site and concluded that there is a 27 in 1 million chance of resident injury or fatality on the site due to Cable Airport operations. Mitigation Measures 4.6.1A through 4.6.1C would be implemented to warn potential residents of the Project site the impacts of living within close proximity of the Cable Airport and its operations. The EIR concludes that with even mitigation incorporated the potential for injuries/fatalities on the site due to a Cable Airport aircraft accident would be greater
161 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
compared to the existing vacant conditions on the site; as such, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Airport land use planning takes into consideration potential impacts to airport operations due to land uses that attract wildlife. Land uses that contain open water and food sources are the most attractive to bird species, especially waterfowl (refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports). The proposed Project would not be designed with either of these features. Ornamental trees similar to those on parcels adjacent to the Project site would be planted on the site as part of the landscape plan. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR. Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5) states “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.” The commenter has provided her opinion without substantive evidence that onsite landscaping would result in an increase in avian/aircraft strikes. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐7. The commenter indicates that the EIR fails to assess the financial consequences to the City of substituting housing for commercial space which could produce sales tax. The commenter requests that sales tax potential under different retail scenarios be analyzed in the EIR.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐9. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)(b)(c) economic or social information may be included in an EIR if such economic or social factors result in a physical impact on the environment. Including a discussion on sales tax to determine the type of development that should occur on the site would be considered economic information that does not have a physical impact on the environment. As such, the EIR should not include this type of information, as it does not pertain to physical impacts on the environment. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐8. The commenter suggests that the water flow and drainage on for the proposed Project should be evaluated under conditions of maximum precipitation.
The Drainage Report for the Commons was prepared for the proposed Project as a standalone technical report to determine drainage impacts associated with Project implementation. Section 4.7 of the EIR was prepared using the Project‐specific Drainage Report. The Drainage Report analysis divided the Project site into drainage areas and used runoff characteristics (soil type, impervious fraction) and acreage in order to calculate flows in cubic feet per second from 25‐year and 50‐year storm events. The Drainage Report estimates the peak discharge for drainage area based on ratio of runoff depth to rainfall depth, time‐averaged rainfall intensity for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration, the area of the basin, and the land use type and soil condition. This methodology is consistent with requirements of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
162 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Response to Comment 19‐9. The commenter indicates that the assumption the Project residents would use the onsite recreational facilities compared to offsite City facilities is faulty. The commenter claims that Project residents would not use the onsite recreational facilities due to physical danger, extreme noise and air pollution.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐2. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐10. The commenter opines that the hazard warning notice to prospective buyers should be given to prospective renters as well, and be more specific about hazards from crash landings, excessive noise, and leaded fuel pollution.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐9 and 11‐10. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐11. The commenter opines that roadway and industrial noise should be analyzed with aircraft noise. The commenter references that Foothill Boulevard is busy with loud truck, bus, and car traffic; trucks traveling along Monte Vista to access warehouse uses on Foothill Boulevard at Central; the commenter indicates that noise aircraft noise would occur simultaneously.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐16. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐12. The commenter opines it is inaccurate to describe the proposed Project as walkable or cyclable since there is too much noise, exhaust, street traffic, and no nearby residential streets or storefronts.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐3. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐13. The commenter opines that the proposed Project’s lack of commitment to all‐electric cooking and heating, NetZero, onsite store of temporarily surplus energy on‐site, should be addressed as mitigable defects.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐6. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 19‐14. The commenter requests the EIR explain what will happen to the culvert under Foothill Boulevard and to the water which flows through it.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐5. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
163 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Response to Comment 19‐15. The commenter opines rejecting application of the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does not fulfill State law’s intent to minimize noise and safety hazards and that the plan should be used.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐12. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
164 Letter 20 June 15, 2020
RE: The Commons Development in Claremont
To Whom It May Concern,
After conferring with about a dozen long time and short time Claremont/Upland area Realtors and dozens of local community members over the last several months, we have the following to state regarding The Commons project at Foothill & Monte Vista:
As some might know...this proposed project as it currently stands includes 68 vertically stair stacked 2 & 3-story condos...very similar to the hundreds of same/similar overly saturated units along Baseline Road and other in-fill areas around Claremont and our neighboring communities. Over time, this type of housing will become toxic within the community itself, as well as the neighborhood surroundings…for so many, many reasons.
The 15 planned 1-story “flats” are a great concept, but these flats need more than a 1-car designated garage; they need 2 designated parking spaces; period. Also more importantly, Claremont needs more than just 15 of such 1-level flat units!
The 27 single family detached homes at the north western end should be fine, as long as all 100% of them have a master suite on the ground floor, no exceptions. Developer has 20-1 indicated ALL floor plans have a master suite on the ground floor, where do we see that?
With regard to the “community amenities”, the long & linear but narrow park like emergency landing strip areas and micro courtyard pockets are not enough and are basically useless. In fact, the current plan is insulting. For the total project of around 110 units, there should be a requirement of a safely fenced & protected resort-style setting including nothing less than: a large size pool, spacious spa, multiple BBQs, exercise areas, playground, cabanas, indoor recreation center including a HOA meeting room, indoor wellness center, and restrooms. Parking in the community is also far from sufficient. There should be a minimum of 1 visitor parking space for each unit. Residents paying around $300-$400 monthly for HOA dues deserve much better than the current plan.
Regarding any 2 or 3 story vertically stair stacked housing, many of us long-time Realtors continue to show up to city meetings around town to protest this most unwelcoming... non-affordable, non-family/children friendly, non-1st time buyer friendly, non-Senior friendly, non-handicapped/ADA friendly, non-empty nester friendly, non-FHA/VA (Veteran) friendly, non-sustainable friendly, non-parking friendly, etc. type of housing. An oversaturation of these unit types invites trouble, both for the residents within the community, as well as neighborhood surroundings in future years.
We respectfully ask you to help us and the community members we serve by building a product that will be more attractive to potential buyers, as well as provide the necessary profits for the owner/builder/developer of The Commons development project.
Thank you for your time, care, and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Claremont/Upland Area Realtors and dozens of Community Members F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
166 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Response to Letter 20: Claremont/Upland Area Realtors and Dozens of Community Members Response to Comment 20‐1. The commenter opines that the type of residential units to be developed as part of the proposed Project will become toxic within the community itself, requests the flats to have double the parking requirement per unit rather than a single car garage, and more flats than the 15 currently designed within the Project. The commenter requests that the 27 single family residential units have a ground floor master suite. The commenter contends that the linear park area is not enough and is useless. The commenter opines that the 2 or 3 vertically stacked housing is unwelcoming, non‐affordable, non‐family/children friendly, non‐first time buyer friendly, non‐Senior friendly, non‐handicapped/ADA friendly, non‐empty nester friendly, non‐FHA/VA (Veteran) friendly, non‐sustainable friendly, non‐parking friendly, etc. type of housing.
The City appreciates your comment. The commenter’s comment does not address the validity of the analysis in the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5) states “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.” The commenter has provided their opinion without substantive evidence that would change the results of the Project EIR. The City decision‐makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
167 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
168
F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 21: Richard Haskell Response to Comment 21‐1. The commenter questions whether the specific plan is a sensible and prudent use of the parcel as it is located in Safety Zones 2 and 4 of the flight plan for Cable Airport.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Responses to Comment 10‐1 and 11‐12 and 11‐ 25. For these reasons, based on the comment provided, revisions to the EIR are not warranted.
Response to Comment 21‐2. The commenter praises the analysis of the Draft EIR; however, the commenter opines that they are not convinced that proceeding with the current specific plan is a prudent decision considering it is located in Safety Zones 2 and 4. The commenter suggests the development of a community garden with compost facility and row of low population density commercial buildings along Foothill Boulevard.
The City appreciates your comment. Section 4.6.5 of the Draft EIR addresses the hazards associated with the Project site being located in Safety Zones 2 and 4 pursuant to the 2011 Handbook. The Draft EIR, provides mitigation measures to reduce this potential impact; however, the impact would not be reduced and would be significant an unavoidable. The City of Claremont would have to prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to certify the Project EIR and approve the proposed Project.
The commenter’s suggestion of an alternative to development on the site would not meet the objectives or purpose of the City or Project applicant as discussed in Section 1 of the EIR. Land uses (i.e. community garden and composting facility as suggested by the commenter) that contain open water and food sources are the most attractive to bird species, especially waterfowl (refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports). As such, the commenter’s suggestion of implementing a community garden and composting facility, has the potential to attract avian wildlife and would not be compliant with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐ 33B. Section 6.1 of the Project EIR discusses the CEQA requirements for developing and analyzing alternatives to the proposed Project. An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In compliance with CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)); an EIR must describe “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the project even if “these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)). The discussion of project alternatives must “include sufficient information about each [alternative] (to) allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” The City of Claremont, acting as the CEQA Lead Agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. The range of alternatives addressed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Of the alternatives considered, the EIR needs to examine in detail only those the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. “Feasible” has been defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
171 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364)” Overall, the City decision‐makers may elect to approve the Project as proposed or one of the Alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, or deny the Project as proposed. For these reasons, based on the comment provided, revisions to the EIR are not warranted.
172 Letter 22
Chris Graham
From: J Davis
This does not necessarily have to be included in the bracketed document but I did want to forward this to all.
Thank you, Jennifer Davis
From: Lissa Petersen
Dear Jennifer Davis:
I realize that I’ve missed the deadline for comments, but I want you to know that I strongly agree with Bob Gerecke’s analysis and critique, below, of the EIR draft for The Commons. Please review the draft proposal 22-1 keeping two key criteria in mind: safety and the urgent need of the City for greater ongoing revenues. If residential use is allowed, also consider more thoroughly the needs and lifestyles of future residents.
All the best,
Lissa Petersen, Claremont resident
(909)518-7532
These are the major defects of the property owner's proposal:
The proposed Commons is in a rotten location, directly in front of Cable Airport's runways, where the risk of a crash is higher than elsewhere, and where the health impacts of excessive noise and of exhaust 22-2 fumes and particles from Cable's leaded aviation fuel are worst. Cable offers only leaded fuel, because many resident airplanes are old collector's items, which need leaded fuel and which, by the way, also spew very dirty exhaust. The owner wants to build mainly housing, with a small amount of retail including food and drink for the 22-3 convenience of the residents. But no one should live in this place, especially not children, who need to play outdoors. The proposal even puts the playground in the crash-landing easement! And it locates parking around the edges of the easement, where a crashing plane will set cars on fire. 22-4
1 It doesn't provide indoor recreation and social space where adults and children can gather while avoiding 22-5 the noise and exhaust outside. It places homes south as well as north of the crash-landing easement, despite evidence that many planes turn southward away from the hillsides and pass over this half of the property shortly after taking off. 22-6
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) typically focuses only on the project's impact on the surrounding environment, not vice-versa, but when an airport is nearby, it also looks at the impact of the airport on the project. The Commons' EIR does this but does it incompletely. State law (Section 21670) says that the goals of 22-7 land use planning around airports are to prevent interference with airport operations and to minimize hazards to people. The owner's proposal and the EIR's conclusions don't meet these goals. My main criticisms of the EIR are these:
The EIR claims that there's little risk of a plane crash, but it doesn't reconcile that with the official Cable 22-8 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan's statement that 20% of crashes occur in this zone. https://www.ci.claremont.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=14665 It doesn't object to parking fuel-carrying autos around the crash-landing easement. 22-9 It fails to discuss research on the incidence of respiratory illnesses near airports or to measure the exhaust fumes and particles. https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/news/small-airports-lead- 22-10 pollution-risk It analyzes the CO2 from ground traffic but not from aircraft. It fails to address children's particular vulnerability to high noise levels and exhaust. Exhaust from leaded fuel, the only type available at Cable Airport, is especially toxic to fetuses and 22-11 children. https://www.mgecsd.org/toxic.html It fails to criticize the proposal's lack of indoor play and social space. 22-12 It fails to recognize that, although the physical structure of the proposed buildings isn't high enough to interfere with airport operations, residents will inevitably complain about the airport and solicit official 22-13 assistance to reduce or redirect flights, or that the trees will attract birds and their predators who may collide with planes, and that those will interfere with airport operations. It fails to assess the financial consequences to our City of substituting housing for commercial space 22-14 which could have produced sales tax.
Ideally, nothing should be built here. However, to reject every possibility would be a government "taking" of private property, and our City would have to buy the property. That isn't financially feasible. Unfortunately, the owner's proposal offers possibly the worst option, with a lot of housing, much of it family-size. The EIR suggests a lower density of housing, but still mainly housing. That's still a very bad option. Commercial use, for which the property is already zoned, would be better, because shoppers wouldn't be present 24/7, wouldn't 22-15 have long-term exposure to hazards and wouldn't need to recreate and socialize outdoors. Also, retaining the commercial zone would generate far more sales tax than the small amount of retail in the proposal (5000 sq ft, a total equal to only 50x100 sq ft), and our City has already pleaded that it needs more sales tax. So even the lower-housing-density alternative suggested in the EIR isn't desirable health-wise or money-wise.
2 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Responses to Letter 22: Lissa Petersen Response to Comment 22‐1. The commenter agrees with another comment letter provided for the Project EIR. The commenter requests that safety and urgent need of the City for greater ongoing revenues be taken into consideration.
The City appreciates your comment. The City decision‐makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐2. The commenter opines that the proposed Project is located in a “rotten” location directly in front of Cable Airport runways, where risk of a crash is high, and health impacts of excessive noise and exhaust fumes and particles can affect residents.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Responses to Comment 10‐1 through 10‐4, 11‐3 and 11‐12. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐3. The commenter reiterates the type of Project and opines that no one should live there especially not children who need to play outdoors.
The City appreciates your comment. The comment does not pertain to the analysis of the Project EIR. The City decision‐makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐4. The commenter indicates that a playground will be in the crash‐landing easement and it locates parking around the edges of the easement, where a crashing plane will set cars on fire.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐12. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 22‐5. The commenter opines that the proposed Project does not provide indoor recreation and social space where adults and children can gather while avoiding the noise and exhaust outside.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐3. The proposed Project is consistent with the Mixed‐Use Zoning requirements in providing multi‐family residential open space. The City of Claremont Zoning Code does not provide guidance for single‐family residential or multi‐family residential units to provide shared indoor recreation and social space. The City decision‐ makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐6. The commenter indicates that the proposed Project places homes north and south of the crash‐landing easement despite evidence that many planes turn southward away from the hillsides and pass over this half of the property shortly after take‐off.
175 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Responses to 10‐1 and Comment 11‐12 regarding potential aircraft accidents on the Project site based on the Aircraft Individual Risk Analysis (AIRA) that was prepared for the proposed Project. The Project EIR does not need to be revised based on this comment.
Response to Comment 22‐7. The commenter indicates that an EIR focuses on a project’s impact on the surrounding environment and not the surrounding environment’s (i.e. Cable Airport) impact on the proposed Project. The commenter acknowledges that the EIR does discuss Cable Airport impacts to the proposed Project but does so incompletely.
The commenter provides this comment; however, does not provide substantial evidence or specific example that the EIR incompletely analyses the Cable Airport operations on the proposed Project. Please refer to Responses to Comment 11‐3 and 11‐12 regarding potential aircraft accidents on the Project site based on the AIRA that was prepared for the proposed Project. Also please refer to Sections 4.6, 4.8, and 4.9 of the Project EIR where these sections describe hazards, land use, and noise impacts Cable Airport would have on the proposed Project. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 22‐8. The commenter indicates that the Project EIR does not reconciles that with the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan’s statement that 20 percent of crashes occur in this zone.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Responses to Comment 10‐1, 11‐12 and 22‐6 which discusses the AIRA that was prepared for the proposed Project and the results of the analysis pertaining to potential of injury or fatality due to a Cable Airport aircraft crash on the Project site. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 22‐9. The commenter notes that the Project EIR does not object to parking fuel‐carrying autos around the crash‐landing easement.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐12 and 22‐6 which discusses the AIRA that was prepared for the proposed Project and the results of the analysis pertaining to potential of injury or fatality due to a Cable Airport aircraft crash on the Project site. It should be noted that the AIRA takes into consideration the entire design of the proposed Project including parking spaces and potentially parked vehicles on the Project site. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comments 22‐10 and 22‐11. The commenter suggest the Project EIR does not discuss respiratory illnesses near airport, measures exhaust fumes and particles, and children’s vulnerability to high noise levels, exhaust and leaded fuel from Cable Airport.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 11‐3 for a response pertaining to Cable Airport generated noise, exhaust, and lead fuel impacts to the proposed Project. Based on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, this comment does not warrant revisions to the Draft EIR.
176 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
Response to Comment 22‐12. The commenter suggests the EIR fails to analyze the lack of indoor play and social space.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 22‐5. The City decision‐ makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐13. The commenter suggests the EIR fails to recognize that residents will complain about airport and solicit official assistance to reduce or redirect flights or that trees would attract birds and their predators that could collide with planes.
The City appreciates your comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 19‐6. The City decision‐ makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐14. The commenter suggests the EIR fails to assess the financial consequences to the City of substituting housing for commercial space which could have produced sales tax. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)(b)(c) economic or social information may be included in an EIR if such economic or social factors result in a physical impact on the environment. The commenter is correct that the EIR does not assess the financial consequences of the City due to the proposed Project. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)(b)(c), this economic information disclosure in the EIR is not required as the sales tax would not result in a physical impact on the environment. The City decision‐makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project.
Response to Comment 22‐15. The commenter opines that nothing should be built on the Project site and opines that the Project as proposed is a bad option. The commenter opines that a commercial use on the site would be better for shoppers as they would not be exposed to long‐term hazards and would not need to recreate and socialize outdoors. The commenter additionally suggests that commercial use on the site would generate more sales tax the City needs.
The City appreciates your comment. The City decision‐makers must consider all comments received on the proposed Project. Your comment will be provided to the decision‐makers as a part of the Final EIR prior to their action on the proposed Project. Pertaining to the commenter’s suggestion of a commercial use generating more sales tax revenue for the City, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)(b)(c) economic or social information may be included in an EIR if such economic or social factors result in a physical impact on the environment. The commenter is correct that the EIR fails to assess the financial consequences of the City due to the proposed Project. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)(b)(c), this economic information disclosure in the EIR is not required as the sales tax would not result in a physical impact on the environment.
177 F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT T HE C OMMONS SCH N O . 2019110341 C ITY OF C LAREMONT, C ALIFORNIA A UGUST 2020
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
178