Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

CITY OF GLENDORA 116 East Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, California 91741

Carroll Vermont / Citrus Crossing - General Plan Amendment, Zone Changes, Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan Review for a 40-Unit Detached Condominium Subdivision (PLN16-0045) Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner 9/30/2016

Initial Study for General Plan Amendment and Zoning Classification Changes to properties within the Route 66 Specific Plan in the vicinity of S. Vermont, Carroll, and Ada Avenues and a Tentative Tract Map 74353 and Development Plan Review for a 40-unit residential condominium subdivision.

Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

AESTHETICS...... 4 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...... 5 AIR QUALITY ...... 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 12 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 15 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 16 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 18 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 20 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 22 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 24 NOISE ...... 24 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 27 PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 28 RECREATION ...... 29 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ...... 30 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 32 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 33

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 35

CITY OF GLENDORA 116 East Foothill Boulevard, Glendora, California 91741

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form

Project Title: Project No. PLN16-0045 / Tentative Tract Map No. 74353

Project Location: The City of Glendora is located in the east San Gabriel Valley between the cities of Azusa on the west, San Dimas on the east, Covina to the south, and the Angeles National Forest on the north. Regional access to the City of Glendora is from the 210 (Foothill) Interstate Highway. The nearest major roadway arterials to the project area are Foothill Boulevard, Glendora Avenue, Route 66, and Grand Avenue.

The project involves two components: 1) an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Classification of the project area; and 2) a 40-unit residential condominium subdivision within the project area which is designated as the ‘Development Site.” The project area is generally bound by W. Carroll Avenue on the north, S. Vermont Avenue on the east, W. Ada Avenue on the south, and from the end of the Vermont cul-de-sac to W. Ada Street on the west. The Metro Gold Line Authority railroad right of way bisects the project area. The project area consists of the following properties:

Assessor Parcel Number Address Size (Sq. Ft.) Use 8639-002-009 218 W. Carroll Ave. 10,556 Multiple-Family Residences 8639-002-010 220 W. Carroll Ave. 9,254 Triplex 8639-002-011 226 W. Carroll Ave. 7,676 Triplex 8639-002-012 296 W. Carroll Ave. 6,423 Single-Family Residence 8639-002-015 300 W. Carroll Ave. 7,065 Single-Family Residence 8639-002-016 308 W. Carroll Ave. 7,020 Single-Family Residence 8639-002-018 320 W. Carroll Ave. 11,621 Light Industrial 8639-002-008 203 S. Vermont Ave. 6,208 Duplex 8639-002-007 205 S. Vermont Ave. 6,133 Single-Family Residence 8639-002-006 211 S. Vermont Ave. 9,085 Quadruplex 8639-002-017 219 S. Vermont Ave. 9,169 Triplex 8639-002-003 223 S. Vermont Ave. 11,578 Quadruplex 8639-002-002 231 S. Vermont Ave. 6,250 Single-Family Residence 8639-002-001 255 S. Vermont Ave. 70,474 Industrial (Packing House) 8639-002-019 255 S. Vermont Ave. 57,459 Parking Lot/Vacant 8639-002-900 75,402 Railroad Right-of-Way 8639-001-026 W. Ada Ave. 97,777 Parking Lot

The development site is approximately 3.56-acres and consists of the following properties (shown italicized above): 231 & 255 S. Vermont Avenue; and 296, 300 & 308 W. Carroll Avenue in the City of Glendora, Los Angeles County, California 91741 (see attached map). The subdivision has street frontages on W. Carroll Avenue and S. Vermont Avenue. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 2

Lead Agency, Address and Contact Information: City of Glendora Planning Department 116 E. Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California 91741 Contact: Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner (626) 914-8214 - [email protected]

Project Sponsor, Address and Contact Information: Watt Communities - Efrem Joelson 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-5074

General Plan Land Use Designation(s): Route 66 Specific Plan / Railroad

Zoning Designation(s): Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan - Town Center Mixed Use (RT-66 TCMU)

Project Description: The proposed project involves a General Plan amendment for the project area from Route 66 Specific Plan to High Density Residential and Civic/Institutional. The corresponding zoning classifications would be changed from Route 66 Specific Plan – Town Center Mixed Use (TCMU) to multiple-family residential (R-3) for the area to the northeast of the railroad right-of-way and Medical Services (MS) for the parking lot that fronts on W. Ada Avenue to the southwest of the railroad right-of-way that serves the hospital and medical facilities. The General Plan amendment and zone changes involve 16 parcels with an area of approximately ten acres.

In conjunction with the General Plan amendment and zone changes, the project includes consideration of a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes and Development Plan Review for the multiple-family residential development. Within the project area, five properties comprise a Development Site where 40 detached residential condominiums would be constructed. The development project involves removal of the existing structures and vacation and/or realignment of the alley that connects to S. Vermont Avenue. The project takes into consideration the public right of way improvements anticipation for the extension of the Metro Gold Line, including installation of median and S. Vermont Avenue and pedestrian crosswalk at the railroad crossing. The residences would be served by two local streets and primary access to a private driveway from the realigned alley and S. Vermont Avenue. Emergency vehicle access throughout the development site will be provided from Vermont Avenue.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The surrounding land uses generally consist of residential and commercial uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the development sites are as follows: North: West Carroll Avenue – Single-Family and Multiple-Family Residences. South: West Ada Avenue – Single-Family Residential, commercial and industrial uses. East: South Vermont Avenue - Glendora Post Office, commercial offices. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 3

West: Foothill Presbyterian Hospital; Medical Facilities; & Medical Offices

The Metro Gold Line right of way currently serves the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. The line is an active spur of the existing freight rail system and is used for one train shipment a day to the Miller Brewery approximately 5 miles west of the subject property. In the future, light rail commuter line (Gold Line Extension) is planned to be added to the right of way with a station platform located to the east of the project area.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None

Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECALARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date:

Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 4

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Emissions Materials Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Utilities/Service Resources Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The City of Glendora is located at the base of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains which are a significant scenic resource. The San Gabriel Mountain foothills rise three and four thousand feet above sea level in the vicinity of the City. The foothills of the San Gabriel mountains are located approximately one-half mile north of the project area and provide a scenic backdrop for the community. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes would not affect views to the foothills as the land use density and development intensity would be decreased from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. Vermont Avenue provides views to the foothills. The development site does not impede any direct views of the foothills. The proposed detached homes would be no taller than 25 feet, comparable to surrounding structures. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

(Source: 1, 29)

Explanation: The project area is located in a fully developed neighborhood and is located Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 5

approximately one mile away from the Foothill Freeway (Interstate Highway 210). The development site does not include any rock outcroppings or other scenic resources. A Tree Survey Report was prepared by Arborwell professional tree management, which found 30 trees on the development site with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of ten inches or more. None of the trees on the survey were identified as oak trees. All of these trees on the development site would be removed as part of the project, as well as four trees in the public right of way on Vermont Avenue. The City of Glendora will require that all removed trees be replaced per the City of Glendora’s Urban Forestry Manual, which will repopulate the site with trees and result in a less than significant impact. The City of Glendora does not contain any scenic highways. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is located in a fully urbanized area that is developed with single-family residences, a former packing house, a light industrial use, and a parking lot. The project area is bisected by the right-of-way for the future extension of the Metro gold- line light rail system. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes are intended to reintegrate the project area with the existing surrounding development. The visual character and quality of the residential project would be consistent with the surrounding area. The majority of the properties within the project area, other than the development site, would remain as is. There are no related impacts. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes of the project area would not create new sources of light or glare as the majority of the properties would remain unchanged. The project area is located in a fully urbanized community with many existing sources of light and glare. The proposed residential project would add new light sources from the interior and exterior lighting of the residential units as well as new street lights. The additional light sources are typical of residential development and further the community’s safety goals. The light sources would be shielded to prevent spillage on to adjacent properties. The light and glare impact to the area would be less than significant.

Potentially AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No RESOURCES Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

2 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 6

on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

(Source: 4, 5)

Explanation: There are no agriculturally zoned properties or farmlands in the City of Glendora or in the vicinity of the project area, which is located in a fully developed urbanized area. No properties in the City of Glendora are listed on any maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

(Source: 6)

Explanation: See 2a. The project area is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

(Source: 4)

Explanation: The project area is located in a fully urbanized area and is zoned for a variety of uses including residences, medical services, retail trade, and limited manufacturing uses. The project area is not now, and has never been, zoned for commercial timber production nor is it envisioned in the General Plan for any timberland-related use. The project area does not support commercial timber production. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes of the project area reduce potential development density and will have no impact on forest or timberlands.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 7

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion or forest land to non- forest use?

Explanation: See 2c. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Explanation: See 2a and 2c.

Potentially AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Incorporated Impact Impact 3 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

(Source: 7)

Explanation: The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes of the project area would reduce the potential density of development. The majority of the properties within the project area would remain as is. The development project entails demolition of four single-family homes and a 23,000 square-foot commercial building. The site, which is located in a central urban area adjacent to a future planned commuter rail and rail station, would be developed with 40 detached residential condominiums. A review of the AQMD CEQA Handbook indicates that the threshold of significance for grading is 177 acres and 1,455,000 square feet or gross floor area which far exceeds the project which is approximately 3.56 acres and approximately 84,000 square feet of gross floor area.

A California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) report was prepared to identify estimated levels of emission for the project. The report results, with the AQMD CEQA Handbook pollutant emissions thresholds, are provided below. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

(Source: 8, 9, 10)

Explanation: The majority of the properties within the project area consist of residential uses and other than the development site would remain as is. During construction activity, all projects in the South Coast Air Basin are required to comply with AQMD Rule 403 pertaining to fugitive dust control, Rule 401 pertaining to visible dust, and Rule 1113 pertaining to architectural coatings. Compliance with these rules helps to mitigate air quality impacts during construction. All projects are further required to comply with Rule 402 pertaining to air quality nuisances during construction and operation of the project, which Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 8

helps to mitigate construction and operational air quality impacts.

Air quality impacts for the project were analyzed using CalEEMod software. Both regional and localized air quality analyses were conducted to assess any potential air quality impacts. Air quality impacts include those during construction of the subject project as well as those from the “operation” of the project. “Operation” of the project includes people conducting typical consumer activity related to the proposed commercial/retail businesses. Operational air quality impacts also include people driving to and from the proposed site as well as ongoing maintenance of the buildings.

Regional Impact Analysis

The following table shows the maximum daily amount of air pollutants to be created during construction and operation of the project as estimated using CalEEMod, compared with pollutant thresholds established by AQMD. For some pollutants, emissions during colder months differ from those during warmer summer months. In those cases, the higher of the two emissions levels is shown in the table. As the table shows, construction and operation of the project would result in air quality impacts that are below the significance thresholds established by AQMD according to the regional analysis.

Regional Air Quality Analysis

Source Pollutant (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Construction

Unmitigated Emissions 20.89 51.85 40.46 .05 21.02 12.52

AQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Operational

Unmitigated Emissions 1.55 3.12 18.31 0.03 2.12 0.60

AQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Localized Impact Analysis

Localized on-site emissions, or on-site, emissions were derived from the CalEEMod estimates. Localized on-site emissions were calculated using similar methodology to the Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 9

regional emission calculations and compared to the SCAQMD Lookup Tables to assess the level of significance. Localized significance thresholds were developed based upon on site specifics and the analysis utilized a 25-meter receptor distance and a five-acre project area. Daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds for NO2 and CO, and these localized construction emissions would result in a less-than-significant impact. As the table below shows, daily construction emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 would exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to localized construction emissions.

Localized Air Quality Analysis

Source Pollutant (pounds per day)

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Construction

On-Site Unmitigated Emissions 51.84 40.46 20.82 12.47

On-Site Mitigated Emissions 51.84 40.46 11.09 7.06

Localized Significance Threshold 203 1,733 14 8

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No

Operational

Unmitigated Emissions 3.12 12.02 2.12 .60

Localized Significance Threshold 89 623 4 1

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 would ensure that fugitive dust and off-road emissions would be reduced. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, localized daily PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would not exceed the AQMD significance threshold for localized emissions and the level of potential impact is reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Water or a stabilizing agent shall be applied to exposed surfaces at least two times per day to prevent generation of dust plumes.(54% and 39% reduction) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 10

(Source: 7, 9, 10)

Explanation: The South Coast Air Basin is non-attainment for California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The region is non-attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

As discussed in 3b above, the construction and operational emissions of the project will not exceed any regional thresholds of significance established by AQMD. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for any non-attainment pollutant and the impact is less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

(Source: 1, 9, 10 )

Explanation: The majority of the properties within the project area consist of residential uses and other than the development site would remain as is. Sensitive receptors are land uses with concentrations of people that may be more sensitive to air quality impacts including children, the elderly, and people with health issues. Such land uses include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, and senior housing. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project area is the Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and care facilities, located immediately to the west of the project area. However, as discussed in sections 3a and 3b above, all pollutant emissions from construction and operation of the project with implementation of the mitigation measures will be reduced below the AQMD thresholds of significance and to an environmental impact level of less than significance. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The majority of the properties within the project area consist of residential uses and other than the development site would remain as is. The development project involves demolition of existing buildings and construction of 40 new single-family condominiums. Construction activity involves typical grading and wood frame construction. Odors from construction include those related to equipment exhaust, paint, and other such construction materials and activities. However these odors would be temporary and short- term in nature and would not be strong enough to adversely impact neighboring properties or the surrounding area. Operation of the project would not result in any odors aside from those associated with residential uses and such odors would not be strong enough so as to be detectable from surrounding properties. Odor related impacts are less than significant.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 11

Potentially BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(Source: 1, 27, 28)

Explanation: The project area is not located in an area regulated by the Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service. The project area is located in an urbanized area and consists of properties developed for a variety of uses include residences and commercial uses. The site is traversed by an existing railroad right of way which is currently used for freight transportation. The development project will not affect or modify any habitat nor have any impact on biologically sensitive species of flora or fauna. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

(Source: 13)

Explanation: The project area is generally flat and does not contain any riparian areas, vernal pools, or wetlands habitat areas. The project location is not governed by any natural habitat plans, policies or regulations. There are no related impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Explanation: See 4b. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is located in a fully urbanized area and does not support any wildlife species. The site is not part of wildlife corridor or used as a wildlife nursery, and is not involved with any wildlife migratory patterns. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 12 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

(Source: 1, 11, 28)

Explanation: A Tree Survey Report identifies 30 trees on the development site with a trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 10 inches or more, none of which are oak trees. All trees are proposed to be removed as part of the project. City policy requires replacement of removed trees in compliance with the City’s Urban Forestry Manual. If the project applicant does not propose to replace trees on-site, an in-lieu fee per tree for future tree replacement shall be collected and deposited into a tree replacement fund. The conceptual landscape plan for the project indicates 81, 24-inch box, or larger, size trees will be planted on site. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Explanation: See 4a.

Potentially CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

(Source: 13, 30)

A cultural resources assessment (Historic Resources Report) prepared by GPA Associates analyzes the potential impacts on historical and archaeological resources on the development site. Properties included in the assessment are identified as 296 W. Carroll Ave. (APN: 8639- 002-012) constructed in 1916; 300 W. Carroll Avenue (APN: 8639-002-015) constructed in 1910; 308 W. Carroll Avenue (APN: 8639-002-016) constructed in 1921; and 255 S. Vermont Avenue (APN: 8639-002-001) constructed in 1910. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, these properties have been altered significantly over the years. The property located at 231 S. Vermont Avenue, constructed in 1952, is not identified as being of potential historic significance. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 13

The property at 255 S. Vermont Avenue was constructed as a packing house in 1910 and used for industrial and commercial purposes. The building was enlarged between 1939 and 1945 and significantly altered. The entire building is sheathed in thickly textured stucco and is covered by a variety of roofs indicating each phase of construction. After World War II, citrus production declined steadily, the industry consolidated and packing houses became obsolete as citrus groves were subdivided and sold to make way for housing.

The former packing house building on S. Vermont Avenue is altered substantially and lacks sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The residential properties on W. Carroll Avenue and S. Vermont Avenue do not meet any of the criteria for significance and lack integrity due to substantial alterations. Based on this and other criteria the conclusion of the historic resource report was that the properties are ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Resources, and does not qualify as a local historic resources or landmarks under City of Glendora criteria, therefore not considered historical resources under CEQA. As such, the impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

(Source: 30)

Explanation: The project area consists of, and is surrounded by, urban/developed land that has been permanently altered due to the construction of below and aboveground improvements (i.e., buildings, parking lots, roads, hardscapes, and utilities). Ground- disturbing activities at the development site, such as grading or excavation, could disturb previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources. Given the highly disturbed condition of the development site, the potential to impact an as yet unidentified archeological resource is considered remote. In the event archeological resources are unearthed during grading and construction activities, the development project would be required to halting or redirection of construction activities to permit the evaluation of the unearthed materials. Therefore, the development project would result in a less than significant impact involving an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

(Source: 30)

Explanation: See 5b. The project area does not contain any unique geologic features. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential to impact an as yet unidentified paleontological resource is considered remote.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 14

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal dedicated cemeteries?

(Source: 30)

Explanation: See 5b. There are no known human remains or grave sites within or in the vicinity of the project area. Further, the project will comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 pertaining to discovery of human remains. e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either:

i) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

ii) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

(Source: 30)

Explanation: See 5b. There are no known California Native American Tribal features, objects, or resources within or near the vicinity of the project area. As indicated in the Historic Resources Report prepared by GPA Associates, properties within the project area are not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Places, nor eligible for listing on a local register of historic resources.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 15

Potentially GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

(Source: 14, 31)

Explanation: There are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones in Glendora. The Geotechnical Investigation report indicates there is no evidence of active faulting in the project area and the probability of ground surface rupture is considered very low to nil.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

(Source: 3, 15, 31)

Explanation: The project area is located in the seismically active Southern California region. The Sierra Madre Fault Zone traverses the City of Glendora about 2,000 feet north of the project area and includes several active faults. The project area is likely to be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking from one of these faults or one of the many other active faults in the region. Buildings are required to be constructed to withstand seismic activity in compliance with the California Building Code. Compliance with the Building Code will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

(Source: 16, 31)

Explanation: The California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Glendora Quadrangle) prepared by the California Department of Conservation indicates that the project area is not located in an area prone to liquefaction or other seismic related ground failure. The ground water level In the project area is estimated to be about 150 feet below ground surface. Typically, liquefaction occurs where ground water levels are 50 feet or less below ground surface.

iv) Landslides?

(Source: 16)

Explanation: The project area is not located in an area prone to earthquake-induced landslides per the California Seismic Hazard Zones Map. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 16 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

(Source: 1, 32)

Explanation: The development project involves demolition and grading to construct new residential units. The design, construction, and operation of the proposed development project will comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan requirements. Runoff and erosion will be prevented with implementation of Best Management Practices during construction. The project design prevents erosion and loss of topsoil. Related impacts are less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

(Source: 31)

Explanation: The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation determined that with proper excavation and re-compaction of surface soils, the soil at the development site is stable and can support the proposed residential project. There is no related impact. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

(Source: 31)

Explanation: The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation found that the soils on the development site possess a very low expansion potential. The study recommends that additional testing be conducted after site grading to determine the degree of expansive potential. Based on the findings of the additional testing, the building foundations will be designed and constructed to accommodate the expansive potential of the soil consistent with California Building Code requirements. This will substantially reduce the risks of property damage resulting from expansive soil, and the impact is considered less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

(Source: 33)

Explanation: The residential project would be connected to the sanitary sewer system and would not use septic tanks or other alternative waste water disposal systems.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No 7 Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 17 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either direct or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

(Source: 9, 17)

Explanation: The City of Glendora utilizes significance thresholds established by AQMD for evaluating air quality impacts. AQMD has not yet adopted any quantitative thresholds of significance for construction or operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. AQMD has proposed significance thresholds that have not yet been adopted. For the purpose of this document, the proposed significance thresholds are used to determine whether the project would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions. The following table shows the total construction and annual operational carbon dioxide emissions from the project. AQMD’s proposed threshold of significance for construction-related emissions amortizes the emissions over a 30-year period and adds them to the operational emissions. This is reflected in the operational emissions in the table. Construction Operational CO2 equivalent units CO2 equivalent units Project Emissions 399.85 metric tons 488.19 metric tons/year + (399.85/30) = 501.52 metric tons/year AQMD Proposed Threshold 30-year amortization applied 3,500 metric tons/year to operational threshold

Carbon dioxide emissions were calculated using CalEEMod software. As shown in the above table, the project would result in GHG emissions well below the proposed AQMD thresholds. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has suggested a possible threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2 equivalent units per year, significantly lower than AQMD’s proposed threshold. Even under the CAPCOA suggestion, the project’s emissions would be considered less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

(Source: 17)

Explanation: Over the past several years numerous policies, plans, and regulations have been adopted seeking to reduce GHG emissions in California. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments is most applicable to development projects. Among the objectives of the SCS, infill development and recycling of previously developed properties is encouraged in existing neighborhoods. The project implements this objective by creating new housing in an existing community. Fewer GHG emissions are generated with the reduction in vehicle miles traveled by residents of the project and use of existing infrastructure and utilities.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 18

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area includes residential land uses as well as a light industrial use and a surface parking lot. These land uses do not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The majority of the properties within the project area, other than the development site, would remain as is. The development project would involve the use of some hazardous materials such vehicle fuel, paints, and glues during construction. However, the quantities of these materials present onsite is small and the regulation of how the materials may be stored and used would result in a less than significant impact. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Explanation: See 8a. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Explanation: See 8a. The project area is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest schools, Foothill Christian Preschool and Whitcomb Continuation High School, are one half mile from the site. However any impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

(Source: 19, 31)

Explanation: The project area is not identified on any list of hazardous materials sites, including the Cortese List maintained pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 19

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

(Source: 20)

Explanation: The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport. The nearest airport is Brackett Field which is located about six miles to the southeast in the City of La Verne. There are no related impacts. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Explanation: See 8e. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

(Source: 3)

Explanation: The Glendora General Plan Safety Element identifies Grand Avenue and Foothill Boulevard as the primary evacuation routes from the city. The project area is located on S. Vermont Avenue and W. Carroll Avenue, two collector streets. Since these are not primary evacuation routes, the project area is not within, nor would it interfere with, any evacuation plan. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has reviewed the site plan for the proposed project and found that the development project meets all emergency access requirements. There are no related impacts. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

(Source: 21)

Explanation: The project area is located in a fully developed urban area. The project area is not located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or in an urban-wildland interface area.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 20

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No 9 Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

(Source: 1, 32)

Explanation: Storm water runoff from the development site would flow into the Los Angeles County storm drain system. The development project would comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to mitigate any impacts related to runoff water quality. The project would be connected to the sanitary sewer system and all wastewater discharges would be typical household waste. Related impacts are less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

(Source: 22)

Explanation: The City of Glendora 2010 Urban Water Management Plan analyzes water supply and demand in Glendora through the year 2030. The demand analysis is based on population projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments, which are consistent with the City of Glendora General Plan. The plan shows that the City of Glendora has adequate water supplies to satisfy the expected demand. The project area subject to the General Plan amendment and zone changes consists of residences, industrial uses, and a parking lot for a medical facility. No development or changes are anticipated for a majority of these properties. The proposed residential development project is consistent with the build out projections of the General Plan; therefore there is adequate water supply to serve the project. The City of Glendora receives a substantial portion of its domestic water supply from ground water sources; however adequate supplies are available and the proposed project would not deplete ground water supplies. The project would similarly not affect ground water recharge or in any way affect ground water resources in the project area.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 21 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 32)

Explanation: The project area subject to the General Plan amendment and zone changes consists of residences, industrial uses, and a parking lot for a medical facility. No development or changes are anticipated for a majority of these properties. Improvements on the development site are residences, a vacant industrial building (former packing house) and surface parking lots. Moran Consulting Corporation prepared Preliminary Hydrology, Hydraulics and Stormwater Low Impact Development Plan reports for the project. The project would involve grading the entire property, which would alter the current surface flows that drain northwesterly toward Carroll Avenue. As a result of the development project, storm water discharge flows would be reduced in general and would be managed better with on-site culverts. The existing storm drain system has adequate capacity to serve the project. Further, the project would be required to comply with all NPDES and SUSMP requirements. There are no water courses on the project area or in the area that would be affected by the project. All related impacts would be less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?

Explanation: See 9c. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Explanation: See 9c. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Explanation: See 9a and 9c. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 23)

Explanation: The project area is located in Zone X on the flood map maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Zone X is designated to not be within a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, therefore there are no related impacts. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 22 h) Place within a 100-year hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Explanation: See 9g. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 3)

Explanation: The project is not located within any dam inundation area. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 1, 16)

Explanation: The project area is not located in a coastal area or near a large body of water and not at risk for impacts from tsunamis or seiches. The project area is not in an area impacted by landslides or mudflow. There are no related impacts.

LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No 10 Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area boundaries are W. Carroll Avenue on the north, S. Vermont Avenue on the east, W. Ada Avenue on the south, and a triangular property (parking lot) abutting the railroad right of way on the west. The railroad right of way divides the project area and creates a distinct diagonal boundary between the north and south areas. The properties to the northeast of the railroad are primarily residential but also include a triangular-shaped, light industrial use (Growth Investments Inc. maintenance facility).The properties south of the railroad consist of commercial, industrial and medical uses and include the parking lots abutting the railroad which serve the Kindred Care Rehabilitation facilities and Foothill Presbyterian Hospital. As part of the improvements for the Gold Line light rail extension, a cul-de-sac will be constructed at the intersection of W. Ada Avenue and the railroad right of way that will reinforce the separation of these two different areas.

The General Plan Amendment and rezone would restore much of the project area’s zoning classifications to the designation prior to adoption of the Route 66 Specific Plan. The area north of the railroad would be designated as high density residential, the same as the properties immediately to the north and across W. Carroll Avenue. The southerly portion of the project would designate the surface parking lot as medical service, joining it to the facilities and hospital. The changes match the existing development pattern of the project area and helps reintegrate the development site with the adjacent residential neighborhood. There are no related impacts. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 23 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 3)

Explanation: The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. Glendora’s General Plan Land Use Element directs the city’s evolution by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The project area is currently designated as Route 66 Specific Plan in the General Plan Land Use Map. The surrounding designations are Civic/Institutional, and Low, Medium and High Density Residential.

The project area General Plan Land Use designations would be amended, and zoning classifications re-designated, to comparable categories. The revisions to the Route 66 Specific Plan seek, to divide sub-districts into smaller areas that would be more reflective of current development patterns. In the staff report to the City Council, the recommendations included removing specific locations within the project area from the Specific Plan and aligning them with neighboring zones. According to the 1992 Glendora General Plan Planning Area Land Use Map, the project area had the following designations: High Density Residential (15 - 20 units/acre), Industrial Park, and Medical Facilities.

The General Plan amendment for the project area would change the designations from Route 66 Specific Plan (maximum 40 dwelling unit per acre) to High Density Residential (15.1 - 25 dwelling units/acre) and Civic/Institutional. Two properties would be considered non- conforming uses as a result of the designation changes: 1) the light industrial use (Growth Investments, Inc. maintenance facility) at 320 W. Carroll Avenue; and 2) the seven-unit apartment complex at 218 W. Carroll Avenue with a density of 29.6 units per acre. Four properties within the project area would be considered underutilized as the existing densities are lower than the proposed High Density range. Collectively, the residential properties within the project area have an average density of 16.5 dwelling units per acre. The zoning classifications would be changed from Route 66 Specific Plan – Town Center Mixed Use (TCMU) to multiple-family residential (R-3) for the area to the northeast of the railroad right of way and Medical Services (MS) for the parking lot that fronts on W. Ada Avenue and serves the hospital and medical facilities.

The proposed General Plan amendments and zone changes preserve the character and integrity of the residential neighborhood and ensure that the development project compliments the neighborhood in terms of scale, character and pedestrian quality (Land Use Element Goal LU-10: Quality Infill Development; LU-18: Compatibility of Adjacent Uses; & LU-21: Preservation of Neighborhood Character). The mitigation measures ensure that residents will not be exposed to noise that exceeds normally accepted levels (Noise Element Goal N-3: Coordinated Land Use Planning and Noise Mitigation). The development project is below the allowable density and complies with the zoning ordinance (R-3 zone) standards. The reversion to former land use designations implements the vision for the project area do not conflict with any regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 24 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

(Source: 3)

Explanation: There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community preservation plans applicable to the project area or any lands in the vicinity of the project. There are no related impacts.

MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

(Source: 3)

Explanation: No known mineral resources are located on the project area or in the vicinity. There are no related impacts. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

(Source: 3)

Explanation: No known mineral resources are located on the project area or in the vicinity. The General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City of Glendora. There are no related impacts.

NOISE Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

(Source: 3, 28, 34)

freight line and future Gold Line commuter light rail operation would result in a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 67.3 dBA. The Glendora Community Plan 2025 (General Plan) Noise Element Policy N-3.1 is to ensure community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) for noise sensitive land uses meet or exceed normally acceptable levels, as defined by State of California standards. The State of California standards indicates that a CNEL of 55-70 dBA is conditionally acceptable. “New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.” Mitigation measure N-7 would be required to be implemented, and would reduce the potential noise impacts to less than significant.

Although project-related construction noise impacts would be less than significant, the following measures would be implemented, as appropriate, as part of the proposed project to reduce construction noise levels associated with the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure N-1: Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

Mitigation Measure N-2: Ensure that during construction, trucks and equipment are running only when necessary.

Mitigation Measure N-3: Minimum 12-foot tall noise barriers such as noise blankets with a minimum of noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.85 and a minimum of sound transmission coefficient (STC) of 20 shall be provided along northern, southern, and western boundaries of the project area to block the line-of-site between the construction equipment and the noise- sensitive receptors during project construction. The noise barriers would reduce construction noise levels at the nearby residential uses by up to 10 dBA.

Mitigation Measure N-4: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and similar equipment, where available.

Mitigation Measure N‐5: Provide a permanent wall along the property boundary with the rail line ROW to reduce ambient noise levels above “normally acceptable” levels and to reduce potential train related ground‐borne noise impacts on the proposed residential uses. The wall shall be designed and built as follows: a) 12‐foot tall concrete block; or b) 9‐foot tall concrete block wall topped with an additional 3 feet of glass (the glass should have a weight of at least 1.6 pounds per square foot, be at least 0.125 inches thick, and be affixed to the top of the block wall with no gaps; if steel framing is used the steel shall be 22 gauge or less.)12; or c) 9‐foot tall curved Brannenburg style acoustical wall; or d) A design which achieves equivalent noise reductions for the first and second floors of the proposed units. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 26 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

(Source: 1, 34)

Explanation: Based on review of Metro Gold Line EIR, the development site would be exposed to vibration levels of up to 87 VdB due to the Metro Gold Line operation. The EIR states that the impacts would be significant and provides mitigation measures at the receptor location WB5 of the EIR. The project area would be exposed to similar vibration levels; therefore, vibration impacts would be potentially significant due to operation of the Metro Gold Line without implementation of the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measure V‐1: Minimize the use of tracked vehicles within 15 feet from sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure V‐2: Avoid vibratory compaction within 15 feet from sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure V‐3: Monitor vibration within 15 feet from residential uses to ensure thresholds are not exceeded. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The development project involves the construction of residential units. Noise from residential units includes noises from residents, trash pick-up, vehicles parking on-site, and other common noises associated with residences. These noises would be consistent with existing noises in the neighborhood and there would be no increase in the ambient noise level. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

(Source: 2)

Explanation: There will be noise generated during construction of the development project from equipment, vehicles, and workers on the site. However, the Glendora Municipal Code limits construction activity to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., which would eliminate any nighttime noise impacts. Construction activity would also be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s noise regulations. Further, standard conditions of approval restrict construction activity to between the hours 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction-related noise impacts are less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 27

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

(Source: 20)

Explanation: The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

(Source: 20)

Explanation: The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip.

POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

(Source: 1, 24)

Explanation: The General Plan amendment and zone change for the project area decreases the allowable density from a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre (25 du/acre + 15 du/acre density bonus for lot consolidation) to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. The 40-unit residential development project will result in a net increase of 36 new housing units with a residential density of approximately 11 dwelling units per acre. The additional units resulting from this project are minor and the impact is less than significant. All infrastructure improvements related to the development project are for the purpose of serving the new units only and would not induce or accommodate additional growth in the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The 40-unit residential development project will result in a net increase of 36 housing units. Four residences would be demolished as part of the development project, which is not a substantial number of the City’s housing stock. The impact is less than significant. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Explanation: See 13b. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 28

PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14 a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The development project represents a small increase in housing units and population and would not place substantial additional demands on Fire Department resources or require the construction of additional facilities. The development project has been reviewed by the Fire Department and meets all emergency access requirements. Related impacts are less than significant.

ii) Police protection?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the Glendora Police Department. The project area is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The project represents a small increase in housing units and population and would not place substantial additional demands on Police Department resources or require the construction of additional facilities. Related impacts are less than significant.

iii) Schools?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the Glendora Unified School District. The project area is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The project represents a small increase in housing units and population and would not result in a substantial number of additional students or require the construction of additional school facilities. Further, payment of school fees is considered full mitigation Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 29

of all potential impacts. Related impacts are less than significant.

iv) Parks?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the City of Glendora Community Services Department and its parks and recreation facilities. The project area is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The project would not place substantial additional demands on parks and recreation facilities or require the construction of additional facilities as it represents a small increase in housing units and population. The developer will pay a park development fee that is designed to provide any needed improvements to the City’s park facilities as a result of construction of the residential units. As such, parks-related impacts are less than significant.

v) Other public facilities?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The project represents a small increase in housing units and population and would not place substantial additional demands on the library, City administration, or other public services and facilities. Related impacts are less than significant.

RECREATION Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accomplished?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project area is served by the City of Glendora Community Services Department and its parks and recreation facilities. The project represents a small increase in housing units and population and would not place substantial additional demands on parks and recreation facilities or result in increased physical deterioration of any facilities. Further, the developer will be required to pay a park development fee that is designed to provide any needed improvements to the City’s park facilities as a result of construction of the residential units. As such, recreation-related impacts are less than significant. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 30 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

(Source: 1)

Explanation: As noted in 14a and 15a, the development project would slightly increase demand for parks and recreational facilities but would not result in the need for new parks or facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The impact is less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16 a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

(Source: 3, 35)

A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by KOA Corporation to analyze the potential traffic impacts resulting from the project. Based on trip generation rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the project is estimated to generate a net total of 197 daily vehicle trips, with 8 trips (-11 inbound and 19 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour, and 15 trips (20 inbound and -5 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour. The traffic analysis studied the potential impacts at several intersections along Vermont Avenue, Carroll Avenue, Foothill Avenue, Route 66 and Grand Avenue and concluded that the impacts at all of the intersections were well below the threshold at which impacts are considered potentially significant. The project would not result in any change to the Level of Service at any of the study intersections.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 31

demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

(Source: 28)

(Source: 20)

Explanation: There are no airports in proximity to the project area and the project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

(Source: 1, 35)

Explanation: The project area includes residential land uses as well as a light industrial use and a surface parking lot. The majority of the properties within the project area, other than the development site, would remain as is. Access to the development site is provided by a single private driveway that connects to S. Vermont Avenue. The existing alley will be vacated and new private driveways provide access to the individual units. The primary vehicular access is along the southwest side of the site and runs parallel to the railroad right of way.

The Traffic Impact Analysis includes an analysis of project access and circulation, including sight distances for turning movements. The addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis includes the following recommendations: 1) Providing stop signs at the two driveway intersections within the project site; 2) Installing stop signs at the driveway intersection with the alley and S. Vermont Avenue; and 3) Maintaining landscaping bordering the driveway intersections at three feet or below to provide a clear line of sight for drivers and pedestrians. These recommendations will be imposed as conditions of approval on the project, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The project has been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and found to meet all emergency access requirements. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 32

(Source: 1)

Explanation: The project has been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and found to meet all emergency access requirements. There are no related impacts.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

(Source: 1)

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in Significant Mitigation Significant No 17 the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Public Resources Code section 21074 as either site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is : i) Listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

(Source: 30)

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 33

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 18 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

(Source: 1)

(Source: 1, 33)

Explanation: The project area includes residential land uses as well as a light industrial use and a surface parking lot. The majority of the properties within the project area, other than the development site, would remain as is. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. A sewer capacity study was submitted on May 19, 2014 and updated on September 16, 2016. The study concluded that the existing City of Glendora sewer system serving the subject property is adequate to serve the proposed project without requiring any sewer mitigation measures. The existing sewer lines convey sewage from the development site to the Los Angeles County Trunk Sewer in S. Grand Avenue. The development project would have two waste water connections: 1) connecting to W. Carroll Avenue, through existing alleys to Dyer Lane, and down Foothill Boulevard to Grand Avenue; or 2) connecting at S. Vermont Avenue to W. Ada Avenue and down to S. Grand Avenue. These lines all have adequate capacity to convey existing flows together with flows to be generated by the proposed development project. The development project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

(Source: 32)

Explanation: A Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report prepared for the development Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 34

project by Moran Consulting Corporation found that storm outflows discharge to S. Vermont Avenue and W. Carroll Avenue. The project would involve grading the entire property and alter surface flows; the impervious surface area of the development site is not substantially increased. As a result of the development project, runoff volumes to Vermont Avenue would slightly increase and slightly decrease to Carroll Avenue. The project would incorporate on- site detention facilities, including installation of new catch basins improving the site’s drainage prior to discharging to the existing storm drain system. Further, the project would be required to comply with all NPDES and SUSMP requirements. The impacts would be less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

(Source: 22)

Explanation: The project area includes residential land uses as well as a light industrial use and a surface parking lot. The majority of the properties within the project area, other than the development site, would remain as is. The General Plan Land Use designation amendment and related zoning classification changes decrease the land use density and development intensity from that allowed under the Route 66 Specific Plan. The City of Glendora 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) analyzes water supply and demand in Glendora through the year 2030. The demand analysis is based on population projections provided by the Southern California Association of Governments, which are consistent with the City of Glendora General Plan. The UWMP shows that the City has adequate water supplies to satisfy the expected demand. The project is consistent with the General Plan build out projections; therefore there is adequate water supply to serve the project. The developer will pay a fee to acquire the additional water rights from the City of Glendora to serve the project. These water rights are available from the City and the impact is less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Explanation: See 17a and 17b. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

(Source: 27)

The City of Glendora has an exclusive franchise agreement with Athens Services for trash collection, disposal, and recycling for all residential and commercial properties in the city. Trash collected by Athens is first directed to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where recyclable material is removed and processed for resale to secondary markets. Trash from the MRF is taken to the Puente Hills Landfill in the City of Industry. Green waste from the MRF is taken to Athens’ Victorville compost facility. The Puente Hills Landfill closed in 2013. The operator, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, has a new permitted facility called Mesquite Regional Landfill in Imperial County where solid waste will be hauled by rail from the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility transfer station. Due to the downturn in the economy, demand for landfill space has reduced and there is sufficient capacity at several other landfills besides Mesquite that can also potentially accept solid waste after 2013. The additional solid waste from the project is considered minor and the facilities mentioned have adequate capacity to accept solid waste from the project. The impact is less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

(Source: 27)

Explanation: The City of Glendora has an exclusive franchise agreement with Athens Services for solid waste disposal and recycling throughout the City. The project will be serviced through this franchise. The City enforces compliance with all State regulations on solid waste and AB939 for all properties in the City both through the franchise agreement and City ordinances. There are no related impacts.

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than 18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Significant Mitigation Significant No SIGNIFICANCE Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Explanation: The proposed General Plan land use designation amendment and zone change from will have no impact on biological or cultural resources. The land use designation and zoning changes are reverting to prior classifications. The area which will be designated as High Density Residential is an infill site surrounded by urban uses. No development is anticipated for the parking lot that would be designated as Medical Services.

As concluded in the responses to impacts on Biological Resources, the project area and proposed development project site are fully developed, and there are no biological resources present in the area. The tree inventory report prepared for the project indicates that the Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 36

inventory is made up of non-native ornamentals species. There are no identifiable habitats or riparian areas that could support habitat on the site. There are no natural habitat plans, policies or regulations governing the site. There are no riparian areas or vernal pools within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

While the building on Vermont Avenue appears to be the last remaining packing house in Glendora, it has been substantially altered and lacks sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The historic resource report states that the property is ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Resources, and does not qualify as a local historic resources or landmarks under City of Glendora criteria. The project area is developed with light industrial and residential uses and has already been subject to extensive disruption, and contains artificial fill materials. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for project implementation to impact an as yet unidentified archeological resource is considered remote. Therefore, project implementation would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Explanation: For the environmental issue areas analyzed in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, there would be no impact that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, this environmental analysis was conducted to determine if there were any Project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project area or development site. No project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project area or the development site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The project, inclusive of the 40-unit residential development, would not induce substantial population growth or significant traffic volumes. The traffic study prepared by KOA for the development project included review of cumulative projects plus the proposed 40-unit development project and found that there will be no significant cumulative traffic impacts.

The project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of air quality and noise during construction. However, these would not be cumulatively considerable, since they are site-specific and temporary. A noise and vibration study prepared by PCR Services Corporation for the development site assessed the potential impacts from the abutting rail line. The noise and vibration study identified mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration impacts to the proposed residences from the future train operations. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 37 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Explanation: The project would result in amended General Plan land use designations with the corresponding zoning classification for properties within the project area. The development project that consists of construction of 40 detached single-family homes is located within an urbanized environment. The location of the development project immediately adjacent to the future Gold Line commuter rail line has been analyzed for potential noise and vibration impacts. Mitigation to reduce noise and vibration impacts to project residents to a less than significant level of impact.

Previous sections of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed the project’s potential impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic among other environmental issue areas. As concluded in these previous discussions, the Project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, with implementation of the specified mitigation, the project would cause less than significant adverse effects on human beings.

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 38

MAP OF PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY

General Plan Map

Project Area: General Plan Amendment / Zone Changes

Vicinity Map

Development Site – TTM 74353 – 40-DU

NTS

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 39

Mitigation Measures

Air Quality AQ-1: Water or a stabilizing agent shall be applied to exposed surfaces at least two times per day to prevent generation of dust plumes.

Noise N-1: Contractor shall duly obtain a permit from the city before construction activities occur. N-2: Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. N-3: Ensure that during construction, trucks and equipment are running only when necessary. N-4: Minimum 12-foot tall noise barriers such as noise blankets with a minimum of noise reduction coefficient (NRC) of 0.85 and a minimum of sound transmission coefficient (STC) of 20 shall be provided along northern, southern, and western boundaries of the project area to block the line-of-site between the construction equipment and the noise-sensitive receptors during project construction. The noise barriers would reduce construction noise levels at the nearby residential uses by up to 10 dBA. N‐5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and similar equipment, where available. N‐6: Provide a permanent wall along the property boundary with the rail line ROW to reduce ambient noise levels above “normally acceptable” levels and to reduce potential train related ground‐borne noise impacts on the proposed residential uses. The wall shall be designed and built as follows: a) 12‐foot tall concrete block; or b) 9‐foot tall concrete block wall topped with an additional 3 feet of glass (the glass should have a weight of at least 1.6 pounds per square foot, be at least 0.125 inches thick, and be affixed to the top of the block wall with no gaps; if steel framing is used the steel shall be 22 gauge or less.)12; or c) 9‐foot tall curved Brannenburg style acoustical wall; or d) A design which achieves equivalent noise reductions for the first and second floors of the proposed units.

Vibration V‐1: Minimize the use of tracked vehicles within 15 feet from sensitive receptors. V‐2: Avoid vibratory compaction within 15 feet from sensitive receptors. V‐3: Monitor vibration within 15 feet from residential uses to ensure thresholds are not exceeded.

Development Site

Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 40

REFERENCES CITED

1. Project application and plans

2. City of Glendora Municipal Code

3. City of Glendora General Plan (Glendora Community Plan 2025)

4. City of Glendora Zoning Map

5. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx)

6. California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Program Reports and Statistics (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Pages/index.aspx)

7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/index.htm)

8. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations (http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/rulesreg.html)

9. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software air quality impacts model

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance Thresholds (http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf)

11. City Heritage Tree Resolution No. 88-17

12. City of Glendora Historical Landmark and Historical Resource lists

13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html)

14. California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/index.aspx)

15. Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Sierra Madre Fault Zone (http://www.data.scec.org/significant/sierramadre.html)

16. California Geological Survey Seismic Hazards Zonation Program (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx)

17. South Coast Air Quality Management District Greenhouse Gas Interim Significance Thresholds (http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.html) Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form Page 41

18. Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx)

19. California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List Data Resources (http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist)

20. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission List of Airports (http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc)

21. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps (http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones.php)

22. City of Glendora 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011 (http://www.ci.glendora.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5241)

23. Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Service Center (https://msc.fema.gov)

24. U.S. Census Quick Facts for City of Glendora (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0630014.html)

25. Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, 2010 (www.metro.net/projects_studies/cmp/images/CMP_Final_2010.pdf)

26. California Scenic Highway Mapping System (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm)

27. Mitigation Monitoring Program for Avalon Bay project prepared by City of Glendora, January 2012

28. CEQA Negative Declaration for City Ventures Glendora Village Collection project prepared by City of Glendora, January 2012

29. Tree Survey Report prepared by Arborwell (August 2016)

30. Historic Resources Report prepared by GPA (August 2014)

31. Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by GeoSoils Consultants, Inc (September 2013)

32. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report prepared by Moran Consulting Corporation (R.T. Quinn & Associates), (March 2014, revised June 2014, September 2016)

33. Sewer Area Study prepared by Moran Consulting Corporation (May 2014, Revised September 2016)

34. Noise and Vibration Study prepared by PCR Services Corporation (April 2014)

35. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by KOA (December 2014, addendum September 2016)