The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutD-1 Attachment 6 - California Grand Village Azusa Greens Final Environmental Impact ReportPrepared for: Prepared by: California Grand Village Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT California Grand Village Project SCH NO. 2018061063 Lead Agency: CITY OF AZUSA 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, California 91702 Contact: Mr. Manuel Muñoz, Senior Planner 626.812.5226 mmunoz@ci.azusa.ca.us Prepared by: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 5 Hutton Centre, Suite 500 Santa Ana, California 92707 Contact: Mr. Eddie Torres 949.472.3505 February 2019 JN 162172 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2.0: Response to Comments ..................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3.0: Errata .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Section 4.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................. 4-1 Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 ii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 1-1 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Azusa, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the California Grand Village Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number [SCH No.] 2018061063). The Draft EIR for the proposed California Grand Village Project (herein referenced as the Project) was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 60 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on November 28, 2018 and ended January 28, 2019. The Final EIR consists of the following components: • Section 1.0 – Introduction • Section 2.0 – Response to Comments • Section 3.0 – Errata • Section 4.0 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Due to its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with this document; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitutes “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 1-2 Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-1 Response to Comments 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Azusa, as the lead agency, evaluated the written comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2018061063) for the California Grand Village Project (herein referenced as the Project) and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a letter number. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Commenter Letter Number Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (January 29, 2019) 1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (December 10, 2018) 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (January 22, 2019) 3 Taite et al. (January 22, 2019) 4 California Public Utilities Commission (January 28, 2019) 5 Wittwer Parkin LLP (January 28, 2019) 6 Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-2 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-10 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-11 Response to Comments 1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, JANUARY 29, 2019. 1-1 This comment indicates that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected State agencies for review and that the comment period for the Draft EIR concluded on January 28, 2019. The comment indicates that the lead agency complied with the public review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The comment includes a copy of comment letters submitted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and California Public Utilities Commission, which are included as Comment Letters 2 and 5, respectively. Responses to these comment letters are provided in the respective letters below. As such, no further response is necessary. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-12 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-15 Response to Comments 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, DECEMBER 10, 2018. 2-1 The comment states that the Draft EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the Site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances in the Site vicinity. Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR analyzes potential Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials based on information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment California Grand Village (Phase I ESA), prepared by EEI Engineering Solutions and dated June 20, 2017; refer to Draft EIR Appendix 11.7, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. As stated in the EIR and Phase I ESA, the only on-site structure with the potential to release hazardous materials is an existing single concrete block restroom structure. This structure may be associated with hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials [ACM] and/or lead based paint [LBP]), as it appears to have been constructed sometime between 1966 and 1988. Demolition of the structure could expose construction personnel and the public to ACMs or LBPs. However, compliance with Standard Condition of Approval [SCA] HAZ-1 and HAZ 2, as well as South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. No other historic or current uses on-site would result in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2-2 The comment states that the Draft EIR needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the Site vicinity and determine whether conditions at such sites pose a threat to human health or the environment. The Phase I ESA identified two potentially contaminated off-site properties within the Site vicinity, the San Gabriel Valley (Area 2) groundwater plume and the Criterion Catalysts and Technologies site (a former chemical manufacturing facility). However, these properties are not anticipated to result in soil or groundwater contamination underlying the Site due to regulatory closure, relative distance, depth to groundwater in the Site vicinity (i.e., greater than 50 feet below ground surface), and/or position cross-gradient in respect to groundwater flow direction (i.e., to the south/southwest). Thus, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials from off-site contaminated properties would be less than significant. 2-3 The comment recommends the Draft EIR identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and which government agency would provide regulatory oversight. The comment also states that if soil contamination is suspected during construction, appropriate protocols should be identified. The EIR includes SCA HAZ-3, which details the required procedures should unknown wastes or suspect materials (e.g., stained soils, odors, and/or unknown debris) be discovered during construction by the contractor that he/she believes may involve hazardous waste/materials. Implementation of SCA HAZ-3 would ensure a mechanism is in place to initiate any investigation and/or remediation as required under appropriate regulatory oversight. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-16 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: January 22, 2019 MMunoz@ci.azusa.ca.us Manuel Muñoz, Senior Planner City of Azusa, Community Development Department 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, CA 91702 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed California Grand Village Project (SCH No. 2018061063) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes to construct 253 residential units and to reconfigure 14.88 acres of the Azusa Greens Country Club Golf Course on a 19.36-acre site (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on the northwest corner of North Todd Avenue and West 10th Street. Based on a review of Exhibit 3-2, Site Vicinity, in the DEIR and aerial photographs, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located within 500 feet of multiple industrial warehouses and 1,000 feet of an active mine. Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over 24 months1. SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to SCAQMD’s recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. However, the Lead Agency did not include a discussion on the potential long-term health risks to residents who will live at the Proposed Project in close proximity to warehouse and mining operations. Both of these operations generate or attract heavy-duty, diesel-fueled trucks that emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which the California Air Resources Board has identified as a toxic air contaminant based on its carcinogenic effects2. To facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on information disclosure and informed decision- making and public participation, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment in the Final EIR to provide decision-makers and the public with meaningful information regarding health risks. Detailed comments are included in the attachment. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory 1 DEIR. Section 3, Project Description. Page 3-21. 2 California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm. Manuel Muñoz January 22, 2019 2 statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Robert Dalbeck, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at rdalbeck@aqmd.gov or (909) 396-2139, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Lijin Sun Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LS:RD LAC181204-04 Control Number Manuel Muñoz January 22, 2019 3 ATTACHMENT Health Risk Assessment (HRA) from Mobile Sources and Other Sources of Air Pollution 1. Notwithstanding the court rulings, SCAQMD staff recognizes that the Lead Agencies that approve CEQA documents retain the authority to include any additional information they deem relevant to assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. Because of SCAQMD’s concern about the potential public health impacts of siting sensitive populations within a close proximity to major sources of air pollution, such as warehouse distribution facilities and mining activities, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review and consider the following comments when making local planning and land use decisions. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project will include, among others, construction of an apartment building with 253 dwelling units. Based on a review of Exhibit 3-2, Site Vicinity, in the DEIR and aerial photographs, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located in the immediate vicinity of multiple industrial warehouses and within 1,000 feet of a sand & gravel/asphalt mine, and both of which may attract or generate diesel-fueled, heavy-duty truck trips during operations. Residents living at the Proposed Project would be exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the transportation and idling of nearby heavy-duty trucks. DPM is a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency consider health impacts on future residents living at the Proposed Project by performing a mobile source HRA3 analysis to disclose the potential health risks in the Final EIR4. This will facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and enable decision-makers with meaningful information to make an informed decision on project approval. This will also foster informed public participation by providing the public with information that is needed to understand the potential health risks from living in close proximity to warehouses and mining operation. Guidance on Siting Sensitive Receptors Near a High-Volume Freeway and Other Sources of Air Pollution 2. SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20055. This Guidance document provides recommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. CARB’s Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 4 SCAQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When SCAQMD acts as the Lead Agency, SCAQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk impacts, and identifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be significant. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. May 2005. “Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning” Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete- guidance-document.pdf. Manuel Muñoz January 22, 2019 4 Limits to Enhanced Filtration Units 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but not limited to, building filtration systems with Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Because of the potential adverse health risks involved with siting sensitive receptors near land uses that attract or generate heavy-duty truck trips, such as warehouses and mines, it is essential that any proposed strategy must be carefully evaluated before implementation. Because residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to DPM emissions from nearby warehouse and mining operation, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the installation of MERV 13 filters or better at the Proposed Project in the Final EIR. SCAQMD staff also recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters6, a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. Moreover, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to DPM emissions. Enforceability of Enhanced Filtration Units 4. If enhanced filtration units are required for the Proposed Project, and to ensure that they are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project and effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency make the installation of enhanced filtration units a project design feature and provide additional details on the ongoing, regular maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final EIR. To facilitate a good-faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future residents at the Proposed Project, at a minimum, the Final EIR should include the following information:  Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity to sources of air pollution (e.g., warehouses) and the reduced effectiveness of the air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoors (e.g., in the common usable open space areas);  Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued;  Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are inspected and maintained regularly;  Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents; 6 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: http://d7.iqair.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Polidori-et-al-2012.pdf. Manuel Muñoz January 22, 2019 5  Provide information to residents on where the MERV filers can be purchased;  Provide recommended schedules (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units;  Identify the responsible entity such as residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or property management for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time, if appropriate and feasible (if residents should be responsible for the periodic and regular purchase and replacement of the enhanced filtration units, the Lead Agency should include this information in the disclosure form);  Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units;  Set City-wide or Proposed Project-specific criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and  Develop a City-wide or Proposed Project-specific process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-22 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-23 Response to Comments 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, JANUARY 22, 2019. 3-1 This comment recommends conducting a health risk assessment (HRA) to determine potential health risks associated with future Project residents living in close proximity to existing warehouse and mining operations, and also provides information related to SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plan and Local Planning. According to several court decisions, including Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1265, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, and California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, CEQA analysis is not required to analyze impacts of the existing environment on a proposed project unless the project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards. As detailed in Section 5.9, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, project-level and cumulative construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant, and thus, would not exacerbate any existing environmental hazards associated with nearby industrial uses. As such, an HRA analyzing the existing environment on future residents of the Project is not required under CEQA. This comment also recommends installing enhanced filtration units in the proposed residences to alleviate potential exposure to diesel particulate matter emissions associated with nearby industrial uses. As stated above, CEQA does not require analysis of the existing environment on a proposed project unless the project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards. Nevertheless, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the Project proposes to install Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 filters in each residential suite to alleviate potential health impacts from surrounding uses. MERV 13 filters are near the top of the filtration spectrum, just below hospitals and clean room facilities, and are considered very high on the spectrum of residential filtration systems. MERV 13 filters also capture diesel particulate matter, oil smoke, tobacco smoke, and soot, as well as biological pollutants, such as pollen, mold spores, dust mite allergens, bacteria, and pet dander. It should be noted that since the Draft EIR was published in November 2018, a Supreme Court decision on Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) was made in December 2018, which found an EIR inadequate and stated that: “The EIR should be revised to relate the expected adverse air quality impacts to likely health consequences or explain in meaningful detail why it is not feasible at the time of drafting to provide such an analysis, so that the public may make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the Project.” Additionally, the May 27, 2014 Fifth Appellate District court Friant Ranch decision concluded that an EIR should disclose and evaluate the public health consequences associated with increasing air pollutants. Draft EIR Section 5.9, Air Quality, recognized this decision and states that all criteria pollutants generated by the Project would be associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma, lung disease, bronchitis). Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and nitrous oxide [NOx]) affect air quality on a regional Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-24 Response to Comments scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating Project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the Project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (April 6, 2015), the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Furthermore, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (April 13, 2015), SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts. Additionally, the SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from ozone, as an example is correlated with the increases in ambient level of ozone in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae goes on to state that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOx and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce ozone levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-27 Response to Comments 4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM TAITE ET AL., JANUARY 22, 2019. 4-1 This comment addresses general opposition to the Project and concerns related to the loss of recreational open space on a portion of the Azusa Greens golf course. While the Project would result in the loss of 4.48 acres of open space, implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require the Project Applicant to provide a mitigation fee payment in the amount of $325,000. The payment would go towards recreational facilities programmed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Recreation and Family Services Priority Projects. Therefore, new or expanded recreational facilities would be developed with funds received from the mitigation fee payment. The commenter is also concerned about potential ‘quiet’ rezoning of future portions of the golf course. Similar to the proposed Project, future projects requiring discretionary approval (e.g., zone changes) would be required to conduct environmental review under CEQA, which includes public participation in the form of noticing, comment periods, hearings, etc. in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the rules, regulations and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Azusa. 4-2 The comment raises concerns about traffic congestion in the Site vicinity, including cumulative traffic from other development projects. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.8, Traffic and Circulation, the traffic analysis considered yearly ambient traffic growth at Project buildout in 2022 as well as anticipated traffic generated by 30 cumulative projects identified in Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, of the Draft EIR. Further, existing traffic volumes accounts for trips generated by the existing Mountain Cove and Rosedale development. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the Project would not exceed the City’s traffic thresholds and would result in less than significant impacts to study area intersections, including those along North Todd Avenue and West Sierra Madre Avenue. Additionally, the following circulation improvements are proposed along the Site perimeter that would provide increased pedestrian, golfer, and cyclist safety (refer to Draft EIR Exhibit 3-5, Conceptual Pedestrian and Golf Cart Circulation Plan): • A new six-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk within the southern right-of-way of West Sierra Madre Avenue extending from North Todd Avenue to the eastern Specific Plan Area boundary with street trees planted every 30 feet adjacent to the sidewalk; • A new six-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk within the eastern right-of-way of North Todd Avenue extending from West Sierra Madre Avenue to 10th Street, outside of the Specific Plan Area, with street trees planted every 30 feet adjacent to the sidewalk; • Removable bollards and signage at the sidewalk entrances along North Todd Avenue to prevent golf carts from using the sidewalks; • A new nine-foot wide golf cart path to accommodate two-way traffic, located outside of the right-of-way and separated from the sidewalk by a vegetated fence, to provide connection from West Sierra Madre Avenue to the golf course holes located south of the Specific Plan Area; Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-28 Response to Comments • Cart path crossing at West Sierra Madre Avenue to connect golf holes 2 and 7 north of West Sierra Madre Avenue with golf holes 3, 4, 5, and 6 south of the Specific Plan Area; • All sidewalks ADA-compliant for width, gradient, and intersection crossings; • Class II bicycle lane on West Sierra Madre Avenue; and • A minimum of ten bicycle parking racks located in the garage outside of a designated parking stall on the first level. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would require the Applicant to install In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWLs) or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFBs) roadside and/or mid-block crosswalks to enhance pedestrian and golf cart crossings along West Sierra Madre Avenue. IRWLs are in-pavement flashing-light systems along the crosswalks to warn drivers of oncoming pedestrian and/or golf cart traffic, and RRFBs are user-activated and emit flashing beacons to warn drivers of oncoming pedestrian and/or golf cart traffic. The statements concerning existing cars exceeding speed limits in the Site vicinity and seven unused buildings across the street are not related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis but have been forwarded to the City for their consideration. 4-3 The comment raises concerns related to the health of future Project residents living near the Vulcan Materials Company, a mining operation to the south of the Site. According to several court decisions, including Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1265, Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, and California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, CEQA analysis is not required to analyze impacts of the existing environment on a proposed project. Regardless, the Project proposes to install MERV 13 filters in each residential suite to alleviate potential health impacts from surrounding uses. MERV 13 filters are near the top of the filtration spectrum, just below hospitals and clean room facilities, and are considered very high on the spectrum of residential filtration systems. MERV 13 filters also capture diesel particulate matter, oil smoke, tobacco smoke, and soot, as well as biological pollutants, such as pollen, mold spores, dust mite allergens, bacteria, and pet dander. 4-4 This comment details general opposition to the proposed Project and contends that the Vulcan Materials Company is required to keep a green barrier around the mine for flood control, noise abatement, dust control, and to provide habitat for endangered species. The Vulcan Materials Company does not own the Azusa Greens Country Club; therefore, it does not have authority to maintain the area as a green belt. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR addresses the Project’s potential impacts related to biological resources, flood control, dust control, and noise in Draft EIR Sections 5.3, Biological Resources, 5.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, 5.9, Air Quality, and 5.11, Noise. As detailed in the Draft EIR, no special-status plants or wildlife were observed on-site and are presumed to be absent based on habitat requirement, availability, and quality of habitat needed by each species and known distributions. The Site is not located within a designated flood zone nor would it be significantly impacted by potential dam inundation by the Morris Dam or San Gabriel Dam approximately 3.5 and 7 miles from the Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-29 Response to Comments Site, respectively. Fugitive dust emissions associated with Project construction would be less than significant and would be further reduced with implementation of SCA AQ-1, which required construction activities comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, such that excessive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Additionally, construction noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires a temporary construction noise barrier be installed near the Le Med Apartments. Construction noise would be further reduced with implementation of SCA NOI-1 through NOI-3, which require construction activities to occur between certain hours, ensure all construction equipment be properly maintained based on manufacturer standards, and locate equipment staging areas furthest from noise-sensitive receivers. The comment also references California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1, Subsections 3500-3800 from the City’s website suggesting the law prohibits development of the green belt as long as mining occurs. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish State policy for the reclamation of mined lands and the conduct of surface mining operations. Requirements detailed in Subsections 3500-3800 are directly related to mining operations and does not give mining companies, including the Vulcan Materials Company, authority over development of nearby properties. The comment incorrectly assumes that the CCR reference on the City’s website means mining operations are required to have a green belt. 4-5 The comment states that the City did not make a concerted effort in notifying Azusa residents of the Project. Mailing notices to residents and businesses within a certain radius of a project site is required under City regulations and is not under the purview of CEQA. However, the City did comply with noticing requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), which require a Notice of Availability be either 1) published at least one time by the Lead Agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affect by the proposed project, 2) posted by the Lead Agency on- and off-site in the area where the project is to be located, or 3) directly mailed to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the parcel or parcels on which the project is located. The City published the Notice of Availability in a local newspaper and directly mailed the notice to property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius of the Site. The mailing list was further expanded to include all residents in the adjacent homeowners’ associations and apartment communities, some of which the units/parcels fell outside of the 300-foot radius. 4-6 This comment details general opposition to the proposed Project and suggests future development in the plans. The Draft EIR analyzed the entire Project as the “whole of the action,” including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Any future unrelated development would be subject to CEQA. 4-7 This comment details general opposition to the proposed Project and suggests methods in which the Azusa Greens Country Club can increase revenue while preserving the golf course. This is not related to the adequacy of the EIR analysis; however, the comment has been forwarded to the City for consideration. No further response is required. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-30 Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 January 28, 2019 Manuel Muñoz City of Azusa 213 East Foothill Blvd Azusa, CA 91702 Sent by email to: mmunoz@ci.azusa.ca.us Re: California Grand Village Project SCH 2018061063 –– Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Muñoz: The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission/CPUC) has jurisdiction over rail crossings (crossings) in California. CPUC ensures that crossings are safely designed, constructed, and maintained. The Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed California Grand Village Project. City of Azusa (City) is the lead agency. The City proposes to develop the California Grand Village Azusa Greens Specific Plan and reconfigure the existing golf course. The Specific Plan would redevelop an approximately 4.48acre area of the Azusa Greens Country Club by constructing a residential community of 253 residences for seniors ages 62 and older. The new residential development is located approximately 450 feet south of the Todd Avenue crossing (CPUC No. 001BBQ-506.35, DOT No. 747297Y) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Los Angeles Division, Alhambra Subdivision. The crossing is equipped with Commission Standard 9 (flashing light signal assembly with automatic gate arm) warning devices on both approaches. RCEB has safety concerns regarding the new residential community as it relates to the crossing. The Draft EIR Traffic Element does not address projected pedestrian activity in the vicinity. The proposed development would likely increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the Todd Avenue crossing for residents to access restaurants and retail amenities located approximately one-half mile south of the project site. Currently there is no pedestrian access through the crossing. Barricades impede pedestrian movement on both the eastern and western sidewalks along Todd Avenue. RCEB recommends that the City conduct a traffic study in order to estimate future pedestrian activity through the crossing so that potential mitigation measures may be proposed. To allow for pedestrian movement through the crossing, RCEB recommends removal of the barricade on the eastern or western sidewalk of Todd Avenue and installation of pedestrian improvements consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at the crossing, including clear sidewalk on both approaches and tactile warning devices. In addition, the City may also consider pedestrian treatments such as dedicated Commission Standard 8 (flashing light signal assembly) and/or Commission Standard 9 devices for pedestrians. Construction or modification of public crossings requires authorization from the Commission. RCEB representatives are available to discuss any potential safety impacts or concerns at this crossing. A diagnostic review meeting may be scheduled to identify safety concerns at the crossing and Manuel Muñoz SCH 2018061063 January 28, 2019 improvements to mitigate these concerns. Please continue to keep RCEB informed of the project’s development. More information can be found at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/crossings. If you have any questions, please contact Matt Cervantes at (213) 266-4716, or mci@cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Matt Cervantes Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division CC: State Clearinghouse, state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-33 Response to Comments 5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, JANUARY 28, 2019. 5-1 The comment addresses concerns related to rail safety for future Project residents given that the Site is located approximately 450 feet north of a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing. As stated in the comment, there is currently no pedestrian access through the crossing because barricades impede pedestrian movement on both sides of the sidewalks along North Todd Avenue. While existing pedestrian circulation is impeded; the barricades are provided for pedestrian safety. Therefore, similar to existing residents north of the UPRR crossing (i.e., Rancho Azusa residents), future Project residents would also be restricted from travel south of North Todd Avenue. It should be noted that the area south of the UPRR crossing is not a pedestrian destination or conducive to pedestrian travel as the area is predominately developed with light industrial uses. Overall, no changes to the existing pedestrian circulation are proposed. As such, the Project would not result in environmental impacts that could require mitigation as recommended in the comment (removing the existing barricades and installing pedestrian improvements at the crossing). Nevertheless, these suggestions have been forwarded to the City for its consideration. Further, it should be noted that the Project would provide the following pedestrian improvements within the Site vicinity (refer to Draft EIR Exhibit 3-5, Conceptual Pedestrian and Golf Cart Circulation Plan): • A new six-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk within the southern right-of-way of West Sierra Madre Avenue extending from North Todd Avenue to the eastern Specific Plan Area boundary with street trees planted every 30 feet adjacent to the sidewalk; • A new six-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk within the eastern right-of-way of North Todd Avenue extending from West Sierra Madre Avenue to 10th Street, outside of the Specific Plan Area, with street trees planted every 30 feet adjacent to the sidewalk; • Removable bollards and signage at the sidewalk entrances along North Todd Avenue to prevent golf carts from using the sidewalks; • Internal walkways within the Senior Village with gated pedestrian access to West Sierra Madre Avenue; • A new nine-foot wide golf cart path to accommodate two-way traffic, located outside of the right-of-way and separated from the sidewalk by a vegetated fence, to provide connection from West Sierra Madre Avenue to the golf course holes located south of the Specific Plan Area; • Cart path crossing at West Sierra Madre Avenue to connect golf holes 2 and 7 north of West Sierra Madre Avenue with golf holes 3, 4, 5, and 6 south of the Specific Plan Area; • All sidewalks ADA-compliant for width, gradient, and intersection crossings; • Class II bicycle lane on West Sierra Madre Avenue; and Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-34 Response to Comments • A minimum of ten bicycle parking racks located in the garage outside of a designated parking stall on the first level. January 28, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Manuel Muños, Associate Planner City of Azusa Community Development Department (Planning Division) 213 East Foothill Boulevard Azusa, California 91702 mmunoz@ci.azusa.ca.us Re: California Grand Village Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 201861063) Dear Mr. Muños: Wittwer Parkin, LLP represents the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters”) and submits this letter on the above-referenced project on its behalf. Southwest Carpenters represents 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in Southern California. Southwest Carpenters has a strong interest in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects, including the proposed California Grand Village Project (“Project”) at 1100 North Todd Avenue in Azusa, California. The Project, as proposed, would include three components. (Draft Environmental Impact Report [“DEIR”], p. 1-1.) First, it would require the creation of the California Grand Village Specific Plan which would permit the construction of a senior living home. (Ibid.) Second, it would reconfigure a portion of the golf course on the existing Project site. (Ibid.) Third, it would involve the construction of a senior living residential community of 199 independent living residences, 28 assisted living suites, and 26 memory care suites, amenities for residents and guests, and a three-story, 253-parking space parking structure. (Ibid.) In order to construct the Project, the Project Applicant is requesting adoption of the proposed California Grand Village Azusa Greens Specific Plan, approval of a General Plan Amendment to covert the Project site land use designation from Open Space to Specific Plan, approval of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the golf course, and a Design Review. (DEIR, p. 1-2.) In the DEIR, the City concludes that “no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur after implementation of feasible mitigation and standard conditions of approval.” (DEIR, Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 2 p. 1-35, see pp. 1-5 – 1-34.) This is incorrect. As discussed more fully below, the DEIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for conclusions that the Project will have less than significant impacts in a number of areas. I. The DEIR’s Cumulative Projects List Does Not Provide Sufficient Information. The data provided in the Cumulative Projects List is insufficient to fully examine the listed projects. (DEIR, pp. 4-2 – 4-3.) The list does not include a description of related development or indicate when the developments will be constructed, nor does the list identify how close the developments are to the Project site. (Ibid.) It is, therefore, difficult for Southwest Carpenters to determine how these developments will have cumulative effects in conjunction with the proposed Project. Please update the Cumulative Projects List to, at minimum, include an expanded description of each development, an address for each development and their distance from the Project site, and projected construction dates for each project on the list. II. The DEIR Does Not Clearly Disclose the Impact of the Project Before Mitigation. CEQA requires that the City accurately disclose the impacts of the Project in the DEIR. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 §§ 15126; 15126.2.) After the City has determined the significance of Project impacts prior to mitigation, the City must then evaluate whether these impacts will be reduced with the implementation of mitigation measures. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15126.4.) The City fails to accurately disclose the environmental impacts of the Project prior to implementation of mitigation measures. For example, in the Land Use Section, the DEIR states that with respect to compliance with the City of Azusa General Plan, the Project would have a “Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.” (DEIR, p. 5.1-26.) However, in the DEIR, the City never clearly discloses the level of significance of Project impacts prior to implementation of this mitigation measure. Worse, in the City’s analysis of consistency with the General Plan, the DEIR likewise fails to evaluate Project impact prior to implementation of this mitigation measure. Regarding Project consistency with General Plan policy LU 1.2, the City states “[u]pon compliance with Mitigation Measure LU-1, the Project would be consistent with Policy LU 8.9” – the City’s consistency analysis of other land use policies repeatedly relies on and refers to the faulty analysis provided for Policy LU 1.2, thus placing the soundness of the balance of the City’s consistency analysis into question. (Id. at pp. 5.1-14 – 5.1-17.) The City thus skips one of the most important analytical steps required by CEQA and improperly incorporates mitigation measures into its analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project. This does not accurately disclose Project impacts prior to mitigation, as required by CEQA. It also makes it difficult for the public, including Southwest Carpenters, to determine what impacts the Project will have pre-mitigation, and fails to provide decision makers and the public with an Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 3 accurate, stable, and finite project description. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126 [lead agency must consider and discuss environmental impacts].) III. The DEIR’s Land Use Analysis is Inadequate. A. The City’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy is not supported by the evidence. When conducting an environmental impact analysis, an agency’s determinations must be supported by evidence in the record. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 [providing that agency findings must be supported by record evidence]; Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168 [applying the section 1094.5 standard to CEQA actions].) An agency cannot simply draw conclusions without analysis. (See Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511–512, 515 [“Topanga”].) It “must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” (Ibid.) The DEIR states that the Project would be consistent with Goal 6 of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (“SCAG”) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”), which is to “protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking).” (DEIR, p. 5.1-11.) The DEIR explains that Project is consistent with this standard because the Project would include “new sidewalks” that would connect to a trail, and would include walkways within the Project. (Ibid.) This evidence does not support a conclusion that the Project is consistent with Goal 6 of the RTP/SCS because construction of a sidewalk, in itself, does not evidence that the Project will improve air quality. (See, generally, ibid.) The City failed to consider that the Project is not close to public transit, or that that the walkways do not connect Project residents to goods, services, or locations that are too distant for Project residents to access via anything but private transportation, which will further diminish air quality. (See ibid.) Similarly, the DEIR states that the Project would be consistent with RTP/SCS Goal 8, which is to “encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation.” (Ibid.) The City concludes the Project will be consistent with Goal 8 because the “increased residential uses within the area [as a result of the Project] would encourage the use of transit and active transportation options,” but does not provide any evidence or supporting reasoning to prove the Project would encourage the use of transit or active transportation options. (See ibid.) This is insufficient. Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 4 Please provide additional evidence which demonstrates that the Project is consistent with SCAG Goals 6 and 8. Specially, please provide data about how Project design will minimize vehicle trips and encourage residents to walk or take public transit to goods or services. B. The DEIR does not adequately explain how the Project complies with the City of Azusa General Plan. An EIR that is unclear or omits key information fails to adequately inform the public about a project’s impact on the environment. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 [“Laurel Heights”] [“an EIR is an informational document” that should provide “detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment….”], citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21061, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b)-(e) [citations omitted].) In its analysis of Significance Threshold LU-2 (“Would the Project conflict with Azusa General Plan Policies or Regulations?”), the DEIR incorrectly concludes the Project would comply with the City of Azusa General Plan (“General Plan”) prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. (See, generally, DEIR, pp. 5.1-12 – 5.1-26.) The DEIR states that the General Plan “designates the Site as Open Space.” (Id. at p. 5.1-13.) But the City does fails to explain that the Project is clearly inconsistent with the Open Space designation of the Project site. (Ibid.) Again skipping over the evaluation of Project impacts, the City instead states, “to ensure consistency between the proposed Specific Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan Land Use Plan would be amended to change the land use designations.” (Ibid.) Because the loss of open space is a core component of the Project, and the Project is in irreparable conflict with this land use designation, the loss of the Open Space designation of the Project is a significant and unavoidable environmental impact of the Project. The City’s conclusion that the Project would result in a “Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation” is in direct conflict with all evidence in the record. (Id. at p. 5.1-26.) Please correct this analysis to accurately disclose whether the Project complies with the General Plan currently in effect prior to mitigation and explain how it does or does not do so. As the Project clearly does not comply with the General Plan, please articulate specific mitigation measures that would ensure Project impacts are reduced to the greatest extent feasible, such as the purchase of comparable land within the City that will be deed-restricted as open space in perpetuity. Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 5 C. The DEIR fails to recognize that the Project does not comply with the existing zoning code and fails to make the zone change a mitigation measure. The DEIR concludes that the Project would have a “less than significant impact” with respect to conflicts with the City’s Municipal Code and Regulations. (DEIR, pp. 5.1-27.) Yet, the City notes that the Project would not comply with existing zoning, and requires a zone change to be constructed. (Id. at pp. 5.1-26 – 5.1-27.) The City concludes that “no mitigation measures are required.” (Id. at p. 5.1-27.) Contrary to this conclusion, the evidence in the record irrefutably demonstrates that the Project would not comply with the City’s land use regulations, and in order to ensure that the Project does not have significant impacts on land use, it must obtain a zone change. Any zone change, therefore, should be classified as a mitigation measure, because, without such mitigation, the Project will not comply with existing zoning and thus will result in significant land use impacts. Please update the DEIR to remedy these deficiencies. D. The City’s cumulative impacts conclusions are not supported by an analysis of the facts. The City’s discussion of cumulative impacts to land use does not bridge the analytic gap between raw evidence and its conclusions. (DEIR p. 5.1-28; see Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 511–512, 515; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.) The City’s cumulative impacts analysis also fails to provide a sufficient “summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects” on the Cumulative Projects List. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b)(4).) The DEIR makes conclusory statements, without analysis of individual projects, that the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to compliance with the General Plan or with the City Municipal Code, because other projects would be analyzed for their compliance with applicable land use plans. (DEIR p. 5.1-28 – 5.1-29.) But the City does not examine any of the projects listed on the Cumulative Projects List, describe whether they are compatible with existing land uses, discuss if they would result in a considerably cumulative impact, whether such projects also seek to change the land use designations where they are located, or whether this would alter broad General Plan or Municipal Code designations in a piecemeal fashion. (Ibid.) Southwest Carpenters is particularly concerned about the cumulative loss of land designated or currently exists as open space, the loss of which the Project will obviously contribute to. Please update the cumulative impacts analysis to specifically examine and discuss the developments included on the Cumulative Projects List. Please explain how close these developments are to the Project; whether these developments, specifically, comply with Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 6 applicable zoning, General Plan, and other land use designations; whether they are receiving variances, waivers, or incentives; and how these developments could foreseeably result in significant cumulative land use impacts, including to loss of open space. IV. The DEIR Does Not Provide Sufficient Enforcement Mechanisms for Mitigation of Impacts to Biological and Cultural Resources. An agency “shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures,” and must have a monitoring program to ensure the implementation of mitigation. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6 (a) and (b).) “The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, citing Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1260-1261, Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(b) [emphasis in original].) The DEIR states: “construction activities associated with the proposed Project could potentially impact nesting birds within the Site and within the immediate vicinity, which could result in a potentially significant impact.” (DEIR, p. 5.3-16.) It proposes, as mitigation, that a biologist determine whether there are migratory bird nests in on-site trees, and, if there are, create a buffer zone around the nest until the nest is no longer active, or alternatively, permit construction within the buffer zone and create a monitoring program to ensure that nests are not impacted. (Id. at pp. 5.3-16 – 5.3-17.) The DEIR requires the biologist to provide the City with documentation regarding whether there are migratory bird nests on site and what the biologist/Project applicant did to protect them after the fact, but does not require that the City monitor the protection of migratory bird nests, should they exist, nor receive concurrent reporting regarding the protection of nests. (Ibid.) This does not ensure that mitigation will actually be implemented. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6 (a)(1) [“[t]he reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation”]; see also Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6(a) and (b).) Please update the EIR to include requirements that ensure that, should migratory bird nests exist on site, the City will be immediately notified and will, itself, ensure that a buffer zone around such nests is erected and construction does not occur within that buffer until these nests are no longer active. In the DEIR’s cultural resources analysis, the City finds that the Project would have a “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.” (DEIR, p. 1-14.) It states that, if there is an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources or tribal cultural resources, “work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified archeologist… shall… evaluate the find.” (Id. at. p. Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 7 5.4-16.) The DEIR states if the discovery is “significant… additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted,” but it does not provide any specific, enforceable protocol for ensuring protection and preservation of a significant resource. (Id. at pp. 5.4-16 - 5.4-17.) If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, the DEIR likewise provides that if the discovery is “significant… additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted,” but does not explain what should occur if the find is important and does not provide enforceable mitigation measures to protect such a find. (Id. at p. 5.4-18.) This does not ensure enforceable protection of important resources. (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6 (a)(1); see also Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6(a) and (b).) Please update the DEIR to provide enforceable mitigation mechanisms to provide for the protection of important archeological and paleontological resources. V. The City’s Conclusion that the Project Would Not Contribute to a Cumulative Effect on Traffic Is Not Supported by Sufficient Analysis. An EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis “shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence . . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b).) Providing incomplete information “concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decision maker’s perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431 [“Citizens”].) The DEIR does not provide complete information to support its analysis that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to traffic and transportation. The City concludes that the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-31 – 33.) Yet the Project, in conjunction with other developments, will increase traffic at Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard and Todd Avenue at Foothill Boulevard to unacceptable levels of service of E and F. (Id. at p. 5.8-31.) The City states that this would not result in a cumulative significant impact because the Project would only contribute less than .02 to the V/C ratio at these intersections. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-31 – 5.8-32.) This does not support the City’s conclusion that the Project will not result in cumulative traffic impacts – the facts demonstrate that the Project will contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in unacceptably poor levels of service at multiple intersections. (Id. at p. 5.8-31.) Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 8 The City also asserts the Project will not result in cumulatively considerable increases in traffic, because there are recommended improvements at Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-31 – 5.8-32.) But the Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard improvements are not mitigation measures, and therefore, are not binding on the Project or the City of Irwindale, which has jurisdiction over these intersections. Further, crediting potential future improvements for reductions in unacceptable levels of service fails to evaluate the impacts of the Project in comparison to the environmental setting existing at the time the City issued its Notice of Preparation, as required by CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 §§ 15125; 15126.2.) Providing these improvements simply as recommendations fails to ensure the Project will incorporate measures designed to reduce these significant cumulative impacts on traffic, as required by CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(2) [“Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments”].) Due to the City’s failure to correctly implement these recommendations as mitigation measures, it fails to properly disclose Project impacts on traffic. Incorrectly identifying these measures as recommendations rather than binding mitigation fails to provide decision makers and the public with accurate information about Project impacts. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126 [lead agency must consider and discuss environmental impacts].) VI. The DEIR’s Air Quality Analysis is Incomplete. A. The air quality analysis is deficient and uninformative. “[A]n EIR is ‘an informational document’” aimed at providing “‘detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment….’” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b)-(e).) An EIR that is unclear fails to adequately inform the public about a potential project’s impact on the environment. First, the DEIR segregates the air quality impacts of construction from impacts from the operation of other nearby projects in both the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative Project- related impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5.9-24 – 5.9-25.) This makes it difficult to understand the overarching emissions of pollutants from this Project. Please provide information that identifies the total air quality impacts – rather than providing separate analyses of construction and operations related impacts. Second, the City’s discussion of long-term operational air emissions does not adequately discuss the existing Project site’s impacts to air quality. (See DEIR, pp. 5.9-16 – 5.9-18.) This does not comply with CEQA. “To decide whether a given project's environmental effects are likely to be significant, the agency must use some measure of the environment's state absent the Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 9 project, a measure sometimes referred to as the 'baseline' for environmental analysis.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 315.) “[A]n inappropriate baseline may skew the environmental analysis flowing from it, resulting in an EIR that fails to comply with CEQA.” (Citizens for East Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 557, as modified Jan. 27, 2012, citing Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 87.) The DEIR does not discuss baseline Project conditions, i.e., the amount of air pollution generated at the Project site in its current form as a golf course. (See DEIR, pp. 5.9-16 – 5.9-18.) Nor does it divulge that the construction of a large residential senior home would result in a sharp increase in air pollution emitted from the Project site. (See ibid.) As a result, the City does not divulge or analyze the significant increase in air pollution that will occur at the Project site. (See ibid.) This violates CEQA and does not provide decision makers or the public with a clear understanding of the existing conditions at the Project site or Project-related air quality impacts, thus eliminating the ability to assess how and to what extent the Project will impact air quality. Third, in the analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts, the DEIR states that the Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s localized thresholds “after mitigation,” but does not disclose whether the Project would exceed certain localized thresholds prior to mitigation. (DEIR, pp. 5.9-20, 5.9-21 – 5.9-22.) This fails to properly disclose Project impacts, and improperly incorporates mitigation into the pre-mitigation analysis of Project air quality impacts, thus providing the public and decision makers with a skewed representation of the impacts of the Project. This undermines CEQA’s informational purposes and fails to provide a clear description of the Project or its impacts. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126 [lead agency must discuss environmental impacts]; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 [“an accurate… project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR”].) Please update the DEIR to provide an accurate disclosure of air quality impacts, including from both construction and operation; provide a clear description of current pollutant emissions at the Project site and how the Project will quantifiably increase the emission of pollutants; and clearly explain the significance of Project impacts to air quality before mitigation. B. The DEIR does not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. When conducting an environmental impact analysis, an agency’s determinations must be supported by evidence in the record. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5 [providing that agency findings must be supported by record evidence]; Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168 [applying the Section 1094.5 standard to CEQA actions].) An agency cannot simply draw conclusions Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 10 without analysis. (See Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511–512, 515 [“Topanga”].) It “must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” (Ibid.) The City’s conclusion that air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable is not supported by the evidence. (DEIR, pp. 5.9-24 – 5.9-26.) Nearby development, in conjunction with the Project, will have significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. The data provided in the Cumulative Projects List shows that the developments listed will result in significant construction and will increase residential, industrial, and retail uses. (See id. at pp. 4-2 - 4-3.) This will result in increased vehicle trips, and will ultimately delay the South Coast Air Basin’s (“Basin’s”) timely attainment with air quality standards designed to protect human health and the environment. (Ibid.) Tellingly, the City does not disclose whether any of the cumulative projects it lists have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, to which the Project will cumulatively contribute. The City also fails to comply with its obligations to conduct “[a] reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b)(5).) In such an analysis, an agency must “examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects” in an EIR, (ibid.), and “must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can” (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74 [“San Franciscans”]). The DEIR does not “use its best efforts to find out and disclose all it reasonably can.” (Ibid.) In the cumulative air quality impacts analysis, the DEIR only analyzes two projects on the Cumulative Projects List included in the DEIR, does not examine other projects in the greater South Coast Air Basin region, and does not disclose the air quality impacts of each project. (DEIR, pp. 5.9-24 – 5.9-26, 4-2 - 4-3 [Cumulative Projects List].) As described supra, the Cumulative Projects List also lacks sufficient information to determine whether each project might contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, either on a local or regional level. (See id. at pp. 4-2 - 4-3.) The City must, at a minimum, provide information on all potential related projects included in the Cumulative Projects List. Crucially, the City must disclose whether any other of the projects identified in the Cumulative Projects List have been determined to result in significant and unavoidable direct, indirect, or cumulative air quality impacts. In an FEIR or a recirculated DEIR, please provide specific pollutant projections for, at minimum, each of the approved projects listed in the DEIR and explain the projected cumulative impact of the Project in conjunction with additional development. Further, please provide a list Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 11 of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on the Cumulative Projects List or in the greater SCAB region that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. VII. The DEIR’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Is Insufficient. A. The GHG analysis does not rely on relevant thresholds, regulations, or plans. The Legislature and California Supreme Court have indicated that “an EIR is ‘an informational document’… and that ‘[t]he purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment….’” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 391, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21061 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(b)-(e).) Yet the DEIR’s discussion of potential impacts on greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions fails to clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the Project. The City incorrectly relies on federal, statewide, and regional plans and regulations which were not designed to be applied at the project-level. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 [“Newhall Ranch”]; DEIR, pp. 5.10-4 - 5.10-12.) The City fails to provide sufficient analytical connection between these plans and requirements for the Project itself. (See ibid.) These plans, for example, discuss GHG emissions requirements for manufacturers of vehicles and suggestions for the California Air Resources Board, but do not provide project-specific standards for development projects. (Id. at pp. 5.10-4 – 5.10-7.) This information is unnecessary and undermines the DEIR’s function as a transparent, educational document. The DEIR also applies quantitative significance thresholds from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). (DEIR, p. 5.10-11.) However, these are outdated interim thresholds that fail to account for the much more stringent emissions reductions requirements of SB 32, which was enacted in 2016. The use of outdated ten-year-old interim thresholds that have not been adopted by the City does not comply with CEQA. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(h)(3).) The City must adopt a greenhouse gas reduction plan in order to make the finding that the Project will not have significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. (Newhall Ranch, supra, 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.) Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 12 B. The DEIR’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions analysis is not sufficiently specific. According to the California Supreme Court: With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by themselves, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is ‘cumulatively considerable’ in light of the global problem, and thus significant. (Newhall Ranch, supra, 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, citing Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207-208.) The City does not provide sufficient information in the DEIR to determine whether the Project’s incremental addition of greenhouse gasses would be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. The City concludes that, because the Project does not exceed SCAQMD screening threshold for individual projects, cumulative “impacts would be less than significant.” (DEIR, pp. 5.10-14, 5.10-20.) In addition to the issues with screening thresholds, raised supra, the DEIR does not examine projected growth in the City, estimate or examine what cumulative emissions from other concurrent projects might be, nor does it examine how this might relate to the Project’s and the City’s contributions to cumulative GHG emissions. (See id. at pp. 5.10-13 – 5.10-20.) Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide sufficient threshold information about existing GHG emissions in the City. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125(a); DEIR, § 5.10.) The DEIR does not analyze what the City’s current citywide emissions are, whether the City’s emissions are increasing or decreasing, or whether the City as a whole is on track to meet the 2030 GHG emission goals set forth in SB 32, as broadly outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or provide any other quantitative benchmark to determine whether the Project, in conjunction with other development, would significantly impact GHG emissions. (See generally id. § 5.10.) What are the projected GHG emissions from construction and operation of the other projects listed in the Cumulative Projects List? Is there additional projected growth in the City of Azusa that would lead to an overall increase in GHG emissions, contrary to the requirements of AB 32 and SB 32? If so, what are the estimated emissions from such growth? What are the cumulative estimated emissions? How would such emissions compare with the emissions Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 13 reductions goals set forth in these statutes? Are there any projects within the City or nearby jurisdictions that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts? Is the City of Azusa on track to meet GHG emissions SB 32 greenhouse gas reductions goals, as outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan? Are there any valid qualitative thresholds for GHG emissions that the City could use to determine the City’s current contributions to GHGs and how the Project might impact this contribution in conjunction with other development? Please provide specific, estimates, data, and analysis. C. The DEIR does not provide adequate mitigation for GHG emissions. The City fails to provide adequate mitigation to reduce GHG-related impacts. The City’s findings that the Project would result in less than significant impacts and, thus, not require mitigation measures are not supported by evidence in the record. (See DEIR, p. 5.10-13 – 5.10- 21; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.) The City, therefore, has failed to provide appropriate and enforceable mitigation for the greenhouse gas impacts of the Project. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(1) [“An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy”]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4(a)(2) [“Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments”].) Please revisit the GHG analysis, as described, supra, and update GHG mitigation measures accordingly. VIII. The City Does Not Support Its Findings Regarding Public Services with Substantial Evidence or Clear Analysis. A. The DEIR fails to clearly analyze the Project’s impacts on fire and police protection and wastewater services. The City’s CEQA determinations must be supported by evidence in the record. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5; Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.) An agency cannot simply draw conclusions without analysis. (See Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d 506 at 511–512, 515.) The City states that Project operation would not require additional fire services because the Project and Specific Plan update would comply with applicable regulations, and “would not induce significant population growth.” (DEIR, pp. 5.12-16 – 5.12-17.) The City concludes that the Project would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. (Ibid.) Yet the DEIR does not support this conclusion with data about existing fire stations, the proximity of station(s) to the Project, populations currently served by such station(s), fire protection response Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 14 times, the number of people the Project will serve, how this will impact existing fire protection, or the potential for the Project to induce the construction or expansion of additional public service facilities. (See ibid.) The City also states that the Project operation would result in a less than significant impact to police services because it would comply with applicable regulations and would not result in significant population growth. (Id. at pp. 5.12-17 – 5.12-18.) The City does not support this conclusion with a fact-based analysis of existing police services, police response times, or other quantitative data. (See ibid.) The City also concludes that the Project would not result in significant impacts to wastewater treatment, but, again, does not support these conclusions with quantifiable evidence, such as the projected amount of wastewater that Project operation will create, how much wastewater existing facilities currently treat, and how this might impact existing wastewater treatment plants’ ability to serve the Project, especially during peak wet-weather 10- and 100-year flood events. (Id. at pp. 5.12-18 – 5.12-19.) The City’s analysis and the evidence provided, therefore, does not clearly support a conclusion that the Project will have less than significant impacts on public services, particularly considering that the Project will result in a complete change to the Specific Plan and the existing land use designation. B. The City’s analysis of the cumulative impacts to public services is also deficient under CEQA. An agency must provide a “summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects” on the Cumulative Projects List. (See Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130(b)(4).) Providing incomplete information “concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decision maker’s perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.” (Citizens, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431.) The DEIR states that other projects, included on the Cumulative Project List, would comply with relevant regulations, and thus, the City concludes that the Project would not have cumulative impacts to fire or police services. (DEIR, pp. 5.12-23 – 5.12-24.) The DEIR, however, includes no discussion of the actual projects, nor does it discuss whether these other projects will cumulatively lead to the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new ones. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Appx. G § XIII.) At a minimum, the DEIR must discuss the specific impacts posed and population increase associated with projects that would cumulatively impact police, fire, and other services. IX. The DEIR’s Alternatives Analysis Is Incomplete. The CEQA alternatives analysis has been described by the California Supreme Court as the “core of an EIR.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, Mr. Manuel Muños Re: California Grand Village Project DEIR January 28, 2019 Page 15 564.) CEQA provides a “substantive mandate that public agencies refrain from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures” that can lessen the environmental impact of proposed projects. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134, citing Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21081 [emphasis added].) It “compels government… to mitigate… adverse effects through… the selection of feasible alternatives.” (Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1233; see also Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) A lead agency’s ability to comply with this mandate is predicated on a clear analysis of correct findings of a project’s impacts. “Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process.” (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 404; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1350.) An EIR’s review of Project alternatives must analyze alternatives “which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(b).) An EIR’s very purpose is to identify ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 403.) In order to achieve this purpose, the EIR must correctly identify project impacts. Yet, the Project alternatives analysis, as drafted, does not adequately assess whether alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen significant Project effects, because the DEIR either does not provide a sufficient analysis or incorrectly finds impacts to be less than significant, including in the areas of land use, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gases, and public services. The DEIR’s alternatives analysis, therefore, does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts, nor does it sufficiently examine whether the alternatives listed would mitigate or avoid Project impacts. (See DEIR, § 7.) This is improper. Please revise the DEIR as requested throughout this correspondence. Should a reexamination of the DEIR result in altered findings or information, please concurrently update the alternatives analysis to include options that would lessen or avoid all significant and inadequately mitigated impacts. X. Conclusion Southwest Carpenters thanks the City for providing an opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please update the DEIR to adequately address the issues raised in these comments, then recirculate a revised DEIR for further review and comment. Pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code and Section 65092 of the Government Code, please notify Southwest Carpenters of all CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings concerning this Project, including any action taken pursuant to California Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-51 Response to Comments 6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM WITTWER PARKIN LLP, JANUARY 28, 2019. 6-1 This introductory comment summarizes the Project description, requested entitlements, and significance conclusions. As such, no response is required. 6-2 The comment requests an expanded project description, address, distance from Site, and projected construction dates for each cumulative project. Draft EIR Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, includes the project name, address, and project description based on the City’s best available information at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released. Additionally, Draft EIR Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Projects Map, identifies the location of each cumulative project relative to the Site. Anticipated construction dates for each cumulative project was not available at the time the NOP was released. 6-3 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not clearly disclose the impact of the Project before mitigation. The impacts throughout Draft EIR Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, are generally classified as “no impact”, “less than significant impact”, or “potentially significant impact”. No mitigation is required if impacts are determined to have no impact or be less than significant. If an impact is identified as potentially significant, feasible mitigation measures are identified that could minimize or reduce such impacts to less than significant levels (i.e., Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated). In the example provided, Draft EIR Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, states that the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to compliance with the City of Azusa General Plan (General Plan). Therefore, it is assumed that the Project has a potentially significant impact prior to implementation of the proposed Mitigation Measure LU-1. Overall, the “Level of Significance After Mitigation” heading identifies the impacts that would remain after the application of feasible mitigation measures, if required, and whether the remaining impacts are or are not considered significant. 6-4 The comment states that the Project’s consistency analysis with Goals 6 and 8 of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) is not supported by evidence. The 2016 RTP/SCS is a regional planning document primarily focused on providing a framework for land use and transportation integration in the SCAG region. Therefore, the potential for individual projects, like the proposed Project, to encourage transit and active transportation, without being a transportation project itself, is limited. Nevertheless, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, the Project would incorporate circulation improvements that would enhance the existing pedestrian, bicyclist, and golfer circulation network. The proposed pedestrian connection would connect from the Site to a multi-purpose trail that connects to the San Gabriel River Trail, which is a mountain-to-sea trail system. Enhanced pedestrian crossings would increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and the improved golf cart path would maintain golf cart circulation safely separated from pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle lanes. The circulation improvements would encourage active transportation and the health of the City’s residents, as detailed in Goal 6 of the 2016 RTP/SCS. While the Project would not directly improve air quality, it would not impede or conflict with the intention of Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-52 Response to Comments Goal 6, and as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.9, Air Quality, Project-generated air quality emissions would result in less than significant impacts. Goal 8 of the 2016 RTP/SCS encourages land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. As stated, the potential for individual projects, like the proposed Project, to facilitate transit and active transportation, without being a transportation project itself, is limited. However, as detailed above, the Project would provide improvements to the existing pedestrian, bicyclist, and golfer circulation network, which would facilitate active transportation. Additionally, as detailed in the Specific Plan, the Project would provide transportation services to its residents, such as taking residents to public transit stops, doctor appointments, errands, etc. Overall, the Project would be consistent with Goals 6 and 8 of the 2016 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with or impede SCAG’s regional planning efforts. 6-5 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not accurately disclose whether the Project complies with the General Plan prior to mitigation. Specifically, the comment is referring to the Project’s inconsistency with the Site’s existing land use designation (Open Space). The proposed General Plan Amendment to change the Site’s land use designation from Open Space to Specific Plan is a requested discretionary approval proposed as part of the Project and is not considered a mitigation measure. Therefore, discussion of the proposed General Plan Amendment is included in the impact analysis and considered prior to concluding the Project’s final impacts. Approval of the General Plan Amendment would resolve the existing land use designation inconsistency. The comment also incorrectly states that the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the loss of open space. Impact Statement LU-2 concludes the Project would result in potentially significant impacts due to a conflict with General Plan Policy LU 1.2, LU 8.9, and PS 1.3 (related to the loss of open space), and thus, requires Mitigation Measure LU-1 to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure LU-1 requires the Project Applicant to pay a mitigation payment fee, which would fund future recreational facilities programmed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Recreation and Family Services Priority Projects. Therefore, new or expanded recreational facilities or open space would be developed with funds received from the mitigation fee payment. 6-6 The comment states that the proposed Zone Change should be identifies as a mitigation measure in the Draft EIR because the Project is not consistent with the Site’s existing zoning. Similar to the General Plan Amendment, the proposed Zone Change is a requested discretionary approval proposed as part of the Project and analyzed in the EIR as part of the Project. Discretionary approvals and/or entitlements are not considered mitigation measures. 6-7 The comment states that the cumulative land use analysis in the Draft EIR does not examine each cumulative project’s land use impacts, particularly those related to the loss of open space land. The comment also recommends revising the cumulative impacts analysis to explain how close the cumulative project area to the Project; whether these developments comply with applicable zoning, General Plan, and other land use designations; whether they are receiving variances, waivers, or incentives; and how these developments could foreseeably result in significant cumulative land use impacts, including those related to the loss of open space. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-53 Response to Comments As detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, cumulative projects would undergo a similar plan review process as the proposed Project to determine potential land use planning policy and regulation conflicts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), “the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.” Therefore, analysis of each cumulative project’s General Plan and zoning consistency or requested variances, waivers, or incentives is not required as part of the EIR analysis. Additionally, cumulative land use compatibility impacts are generally limited to a project site’s immediate surrounding. As shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Projects Map, the closest cumulative projects to the Site are the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park and Colorama (Canyon City Business Center) projects. These cumulative projects do not require changes in land use designations or zoning and are compatible with their neighboring industrial uses. Additionally, none of the cumulative projects identified in Draft EIR Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Projects Map, are located on sites designated or zoned as open space, and thus would not result in a loss of open space within Azusa upon development. 6-8 The comment recommends Mitigation Measure BIO-1 be updated to ensure the City is immediately notified of any nesting birds found on-site and for the City to receive concurrent reporting regarding monitoring efforts to ensure the mitigation is implemented appropriately. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised as follows to address this comment: BIO-1 Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act, and California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513), if the Project Applicant conducts all Site disturbance/vegetation removal activities (such as removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat) outside the avian nesting season, January 1 through September 15, no further action is necessary. However, if ground disturbance/vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities. If no active nests are identified, the biologist shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur during Site disturbance activities. If vegetation clearing is not completed within five days of a negative survey, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. If active nests are identified, the City shall be notified immediately, and the qualified biologist shall establish non-disturbance buffers around the active nests (500-foot buffer for raptors/sensitive species and 200-foot buffers for non- raptors/non-sensitive species). The biologist shall monitor these buffers weekly to ensure no work occurs within them, until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles have successfully fledged and are surviving independent from the nest). Work can resume within the buffers when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the non-disturbance buffer areas with implementation of a monitoring and mitigation plan to prevent any impacts while the nest(s) continue Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-54 Response to Comments to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Weekly monitoring reports Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up measures that may be required, a monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Azusa Community Development Department for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. 6-9 The comment states that the mitigation measures detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Tribal and Cultural Resources, do not explain what procedures should be taken should unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources or paleontological resources occur during construction activities. Mitigation measures detailed in this section would work in conjunction with one another and provide specific, enforceable protocol to ensure the protection and preservation of potentially significant cultural resources. Per Mitigation Measure CUL-2, a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor are required to be present on-site during all initial ground disturbing activities; therefore, should any unanticipated discovery of cultural or paleontological resources be identified, the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor would evaluate the find and determine its potential significance under CEQA. Further, as detailed in Mitigation Measure CUL-4, if the resource is determined to be Native American in origin, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation would coordinate with the property owner regarding treatment and curation of the resource, and if the resource is determined to be a significant historical or archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor would be required to coordinate with the Project Applicant and City to develop a formal treatment plan. Similarly, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 details procedures should paleontological resources be found during ground-disturbing activities. If the resource is determined to be Native American in origin, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 details the required protocols specific to preserving the tribal cultural resource. If the resource is identified as human remains or associated funerary objects, Mitigation Measure CUL-6 details the appropriate procedures to ensure the discovery is protected, preserved, and evaluated. 6-10 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not provide complete information to support its analysis that the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, “where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.” It should be noted that future traffic conditions analyzed in Draft EIR Appendix 11.8, Traffic Impact Analysis, are inherently “cumulative” because the future traffic conditions already consider traffic generated by all cumulative projects as well as ambient traffic growth at project buildout in year 2022. Draft EIR Section 5.8, Traffic and Circulation, states that cumulative traffic impacts would result in unacceptable LOS E and F at the intersections of Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard (No. 1) and Todd Avenue at Foothill Boulevard (No. 2), under both “Future Without Project” and “Future Plus Project” conditions. Under “Future Plus Project” conditions, the Project would add less than 0.02 to the V/C ratio and therefore, is considered cumulatively insignificant. Thus, the Project’s cumulative impacts on these two study area intersections are less than significant. The comment also states that the recommended improvements at Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard cited in the Draft EIR are not identified as mitigation measures of the Project and thus, not enforceable. The Draft EIR cites recommended improvements for Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-55 Response to Comments Irwindale Avenue at Foothill Boulevard (No. 1) as detailed in the Tenth Street Center Industrial Draft Traffic Report, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated April 24, 2014. These improvements would further reduce already less than significant cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Project and is a required mitigation measure in the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013121096, prepared by Michael Baker International, dated July 2014. Regardless of if the recommended improvement is implemented as part of the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park project, the proposed Project’s cumulative traffic impacts would still be less than significant. 6-11 The comment states that the Draft EIR incorrectly separates the Project’s impacts related to construction and operational activities. The basic methodology for evaluating air quality impacts for projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) under CEQA is detailed in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Per SCAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the Project’s construction and operational air quality impacts should be quantified separately and compared to separate thresholds of significance (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2). Mass emission thresholds of significance apply to peak day emissions and since Project-related construction and operational activities would not occur simultaneously, combining the construction and operational emissions would be inappropriate. Overall, the analysis in Draft EIR Section 5.9, Air Quality, follows SCAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. 6-12 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not compare existing air quality emissions of the golf course to that of the Project. Air pollutant emissions associated with existing operation of the golf course (baseline) were quantified and are presented in the following table. As shown in Table 1, Peak Day Operational Emissions, Project-generated emissions would be below thresholds of significance. Note, the Project’s incremental increase in emissions at buildout are also detailed in Draft EIR Table 5.9-5, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions. Table 1 Peak Day Operational Emissions Source Category Emissions (lb/day) PM10 PM2.5 NOX SOX CO VOC Existing Conditions (2017) Area Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Emissions 4 1 7 0 16 1 Total Existing Conditions (2017) 4 1 7 0 16 1 Buildout Year (2020) Area Emissions 0 0 4 0 23 7 Energy Emissions 0 0 1 0 0 0 Mobile Emissions 10 3 16 0 38 3 Total Buildout Year (2020) 11 3 21 0 61 10 Project Increment 2020 7 2 14 0 46 8 Significance Threshold 150 55 55 150 550 55 Significant? No No No No No No Notes: Emissions might not add precisely due to rounding. Buildout Year 2020 reflects the residential development operational emissions. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-56 Response to Comments Additionally, the comment states that the Draft EIR does not divulge or analyze the significant increase in air pollution. However, Draft EIR Table 5.9-4, Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emissions, and Table 5.9-5, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions, present construction and operational emissions generated by the Project and compare them to established thresholds of significance consistent with SCAQMD standards. As shown, construction and operational emissions would be below SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be less than significant. 6-13 The comment states that the Project’s localized construction emissions impacts are not identified prior to implementation of mitigation, and therefore, the Draft EIR does not properly disclose Project impacts. Draft EIR Table 5.9-7, Construction Localized Significance Emissions Summary, identifies localized Project impacts both with and without mitigation for construction emissions (refer to “Unmitigated Daily Emissions” rows in Draft EIR Table 5.9- 7). As shown, unmitigated localized on-site construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 during the Project’s site preparation and grading construction phases and therefore Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is required to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, although operational localized impacts are discussed qualitatively in the impact analysis, Draft EIR Appendix 11.9, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Table 10, Localized Peak Day Operational Emissions, shows that localized impacts would be below significance thresholds prior to mitigation and as such, no mitigation is required. 6-14 The comment suggests updating the air quality analysis to provide a clear description of current pollutant emissions at the Site and how the Project would quantifiably increase the emission of pollutants, and clearly explain the Project’s impacts prior to mitigation. Refer to responses to Comments 6-11 through 6-13. 6-15 The comment states that the Project’s less than significant cumulative air quality impact is not supported by evidence. In particular, the Draft EIR does not disclose the air quality impacts associated with each cumulative project and the Project’s cumulative contribution to such impacts. The comment suggests providing specific pollutant projections for each cumulative project and including a list of all cumulative projects in the SCAB region that have been found to result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. A list of cumulatively relevant projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable), prepared as part of the traffic impact analysis, was used as the basis for the air quality analysis. The list includes known and foreseeable projects that are anticipated to contribute emissions to the SCAB in the vicinity and concurrently with the Project’s construction and operations; refer to Draft EIR Appendix 11.9, Table 11, List of Cumulatively Relevant Projects. The ambient air quality of the SCAB represents cumulative air quality in the region, which is currently in nonattainment with Federal and/or State standards for ozone, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns PM2.5. Cumulatively relevant projects, identified in the Draft EIR, could further contribute to the SCAB’s nonattainment. However, construction impacts associated with cumulatively relevant projects are not necessarily additive as it is speculative to assume construction activities associated with the Project and all cumulative projects would occur on the same day. Similarly, operational impacts associated with related projects are also not necessarily additive, as they are unlikely to impact the same sensitive receptors unless the projects are located in close vicinity to one another. As shown Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-57 Response to Comments on Draft EIR Exhibit 4-1, Cumulative Projects Map, the closest cumulative projects are the Colorama Project (Canyon City Business Center) and the Tenth Street Center Industrial Business Park Project, which are identified in the cumulative analysis. For these reasons, an exhaustive quantitative evaluation of potentially cumulatively relevant projects would not only fail to provide additionally useful information but would be speculative. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4) state that “the mere existence of cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” SCAQMD has developed a policy to address the cumulative impacts of CEQA projects. The policy holds that proposed project impacts would be cumulatively considerable if they were to exceed the project-specific air quality significance thresholds. As detailed in the Draft EIR, Project- related air quality emissions would be below all SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, although the Project would contribute to impacts from cumulatively related projects and to the existing pollution burden in SCAB, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. 6-16 The comment suggests the greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis incorrectly relies on Federal, State, and regional plans and regulations not designed for project-level analysis. Draft EIR Section 5.10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provides a historic narrative of State GHG initiatives and regulations. However, the impact analyses do not rely on those for determination of significance. Rather, Project significance was determined based on a GHG threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) in accordance with SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (2008). Although the SCAQMD’s significance threshold is dated 2008, it is still appropriate for use in current projects. In its policy objective, the SCAQMD states that their policy “was developed using the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the threshold.” Executive Order S-3-05 established the overreaching State reduction targets of reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The comment states that the SCAQMD does not consider Senate Bill (SB) 32 (2016) because the SCAQMD methodology pre-dates SB 32. However, SB 32, which requires California to reduce Statewide GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, is only an interim goal intended to bridge the gap between the 2020 and 2050 Executive Order S-3-05 targets. A threshold based on the 2050 Executive Order S-3-05 target is more conservative than one based on the SB 32 interim goal. Further, the SCAQMD specifically states that “a threshold of approximately 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr emissions would capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects.” Draft EIR Impact Statement GHG-2 evaluates whether the Project would preclude State or local GHG reduction efforts. Because the proposed project would comply with existing regulations, applicable to project activities, and would, by law, comply with future regulatory requirements, applicable to Project activities, developed as part of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and Scoping Plan Update as well as the other plans and policies identified in the Draft EIR, it was concluded that Project would not preclude the State’s implementation of the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan or Scoping Plan Update. The comment also states that the City must adopt a GHG reduction plan in order to make the finding that the Project would not have significant GHG impacts. Development of a Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-58 Response to Comments climate action plan or GHG reduction plan is not a requirement under CEQA. The Draft EIR relies on GHG significance thresholds developed by the SCAQMD in the same way it relies on other thresholds developed by regulatory agencies in other sections, at the project level. Furthermore, projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a project conflicts with or precludes State or local GHG reduction efforts. As detailed in the Draft EIR Section 5.10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GHG impact analyses can be conducted consistent with the City’s thresholds of significance, established in the CEQA Guidelines and SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance, without adoption of a climate action plan. 6-17 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze GHG emission impacts from the Project or related projects. The comment also states that the Draft EIR does not quantify existing GHG emissions in Azusa or whether the City is on track to meet the 2030 GHG emission goals set forth in AB 32, the Scoping Plan, and the Scoping Plan Update. The Draft EIR utilizes SCAQMD’s suggested significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr as a quantifiable means to determine whether the Project’s GHG emissions would cause a significant impact on the environment. As stated in Response to Comment 6-16, the use of SCAQMD’s standard is appropriate and the Project’s direct and indirect GHG emissions are below the 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr threshold. In addition, per SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (2008), SCAQMD’s GHG threshold methodology screens out small projects that “would not likely contribute to a significant cumulative GHG impact.” Since the Project’s GHG emissions are below the threshold of significance, the Project would not result in a considerable contribution to global climate change. Neither the CEQA Guidelines nor the SCAQMD guidance requires a City to quantify GHG emissions from other cumulatively related projects as part of a cumulative analysis. Since GHG impacts are already cumulative toward global climate change, such an analysis would require the analysis of all projects in the SCAB, California, and beyond. Additionally, SCAQMD has already established that a contribution of less than 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr is not a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions. Therefore, quantification of GHG emissions from other projects within the City would not be required to determine whether the Project causes a considerable contribution to cumulative GHG impacts. 6-18 The comment states that mitigation is not adequately provided to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts. Refer to response to Comment 6-16 regarding suitability of the GHG threshold. CEQA requires mitigation of impacts that exceed significance thresholds. As shown in Draft EIR Table 5.10-1, Projected Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project-generated GHG emissions would be below the threshold of significance and as such does not require any mitigation. 6-19 The comment suggests data about existing fire and police services (e.g., fire and police stations, the proximity of the station(s) to the Site, populations currently served by the station(s), response times) and Project impacts on existing resources be included in the Draft EIR. Existing conditions related to fire and police services, including existing equipment, fire personnel, and police officers, are provided in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities. The impact analyses related to fire and police services conclude that the Project would not induce significant population growth that could impact existing services and is based on fact-based quantifiable information available in Draft EIR Section 6.3, Growth Inducing Impacts. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-59 Response to Comments The analysis in ‘Growth Inducing Impacts’ is based on information provided by the U.S. Census, SCAG, California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department, and City of Azusa. Further, Project development would be subject to payment of a pro-rated fee for additional fire and police facilities and personnel to off-set any potential impacts to existing services. It should also be noted that the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Azusa Police Department have reviewed and provided comments/corrections to the proposed Specific Plan and Site plan details to ensure the Project provides adequate emergency access, fire flow, sprinkler systems, hydrant spacing, and turning radii, among other safety criteria. The Fire Master Plan included in the Specific Plan was also approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The comment also states that quantitative analysis related to the Project’s impacts on wastewater treatment was not provided in the Draft EIR. Quantitative wastewater analysis is provided in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities. The analysis was primarily based on the California Grand Villages Azusa Greens Sewer Capacity Study (Sewer Study), dated May 2017, prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants; refer to Draft EIR Appendix 11.11, Sewer/Water Studies. As detailed in the Draft EIR, the Project would generate up to 73,920 gallons of wastewater per day. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles’ San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and Joint Water Pollution Control Plant treat wastewater generated in Azusa. The San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant has a design capacity of 100 million gallons per day (MGD) and currently processes an average flow of 65.7 MGD. The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant has a design capacity of 400 MGD and currently processes an average flow of 263.1 MGD. Given the capacity available at both wastewater treatment plants, sufficient capacity exists to serve the Project and no new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities are necessary. 6-20 The comment states that the cumulative public services impact analysis is deficient and should include a discussion of each cumulative project’s impact and potential population increase that could cumulatively impact police, fire, and other services. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), “the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.” Therefore, analysis of each cumulative project’s individual impacts on fire and police services is not required. Further, the closest cumulative projects to the Site are the Tenth Street Center Industrial Park and Colorama (Canyon City Business Center) projects, which concluded in their respective EIRs that project-level and cumulative impacts to fire and police services would be less than significant. Both of these cumulative projects also would not introduce new permanent residents to the Site vicinity that could increase demand for public services. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative impacts to fire and police services in conjunction with nearby cumulative projects’ impacts would be less than significant. 6-21 The comment suggests that based on the issues raised in the comment letter, the Draft EIR does not correctly identify Project impacts, specifically those related to land use, traffic, air quality, GHG emissions, and public services. Therefore, the alternatives analysis does not adequately compare the appropriate Project impacts to the identified alternatives. Refer to responses to Comments 6-2 through 6-20. The EIR adequately analyzes the Project’s environmental impacts associated with land use, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gases, and public services, and concludes that the Project would not result in any significant and Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 2-60 Response to Comments unavoidable impacts. In other words, all environmental impacts associated with the Project either have no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. 6-22 This concluding statement requests the Draft EIR be revised to address the issues raised in the comment letter and to recirculate the EIR for further review and comment. The comment also requests notification of all Project-related actions and notices. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in responses to Comments 6-2 through 6-21 constitutes “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Additionally, the Southwest Carpenters will be notified of any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, and/or public hearings on the Project. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 3-1 Errata 3.0 ERRATA Changes to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are noted below. A double-underline indicates additions to the text; strikethrough indicates deletions to the text. Changes have been analyzed and responded to in Section 2.0, Response to Comments, of this Final EIR. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Changes are listed by page and, where appropriate, by paragraph. These errata address the technical comments on the Draft EIR, which circulated from November 28, 2108 through January 28, 2019. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or substantially greater significant impacts as compared to those identified in the Draft EIR. Any changes referenced to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR text also apply to the Table of Contents, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft EIR. All mitigation measure modifications have been reflected in Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of this Final EIR. SECTION 5.1, LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING Page 5.1-26, Mitigation Measures LU-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide a mitigation fee payment in the amount of $325,000 to provide improvements to City recreational facilities that have been programmed into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Recreation and Family Services Priority ProjectsParks Master Plan. The facilities where the improvements shall be applied to shall be at the discretion of the City’s Community Development Director, or his/her designee. Mitigation fees shall be placed in a separate fund and specifically used toward the improvement of passive open spaces for recreational purposes, consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies 8.10 and 8.11. SECTION 5.3, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 5.3-17, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act, and California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513), if the Project Applicant conducts all Site disturbance/vegetation removal activities (such as removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat) outside the avian nesting season, January 1 through September 15, no further action is necessary. However, if ground disturbance/vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities. If no active nests are identified, the biologist shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur during Site disturbance activities. If vegetation clearing is not completed within five days of a negative survey, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 3-2 Errata If active nests are identified, the City shall be notified immediately, and the qualified biologist shall establish non-disturbance buffers around the active nests (500-foot buffer for raptors/sensitive species and 200-foot buffers for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). The biologist shall monitor these buffers weekly to ensure no work occurs within them, until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles have successfully fledged and are surviving independent from the nest). Work can resume within the buffers when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the non-disturbance buffer areas with implementation of a monitoring and mitigation plan to prevent any impacts while the nest(s) continue to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Weekly monitoring reports Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up measures that may be required, a monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Azusa Community Development Department for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, has been prepared for the California Grand Village Project (Project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the California Grand Village Project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: • The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. • Departments/agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the EIR, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. • Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. • Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. • Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. • Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and/or conditions of permits/approvals. Minor changes to the MMRP, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The following subsections of the Draft EIR contain a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, Project impacts (including direct and indirect, short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts), recommended mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable impacts, if any. Based on the Draft EIR, no significant impacts would occur in regard to the following environmental issue areas, which are addressed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant: • Agriculture and Forestry Resources; • Mineral Resources; • Population and Housing; and • Recreation. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following environmental issue areas were determined in the Draft EIR to have a potentially significant impact, and have been included within the Draft EIR for further analysis: • Land Use and Relevant Planning; • Aesthetics/Light and Glare; • Biological Resources; • Tribal and Cultural Resources; • Geology and Soils; • Hydrology and Water Quality; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Traffic and Circulation; • Air Quality; • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; • Noise; and • Public Services and Utilities. For the purposes of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts were analyzed in each environmental issue area for the proposed Project. Consideration of Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) that apply to each respective topical area was considered, particularly if that impact would be further reduced. If a potentially significant impact remained after implementation of applicable SCAs, mitigation measures were also recommended in order to reduce any significant impacts. Where mitigation measures were not required, it is noted as not applicable (NA) in the following table. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING Standard Conditions of Approval NA Mitigation Measures LU-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide a mitigation fee payment in the amount of $325,000 to provide improvements to City recreational facilities that have been programmed into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Recreation and Family Services Priority Projects. The facilities where the improvements shall be applied to shall be at the discretion of the City’s Community Development Director, or his/her designee. Mitigation fees shall be placed in a separate fund and specifically used toward the improvement of passive open spaces for recreational purposes, consistent with General Plan Land Use Policies 8.10 and 8.11. Applicant Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Director of Economic and Community Development During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval AESTHETICS Standard Conditions of Approval SCA AES-1 Concurrent with the Grading Permit Application, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Economic and Community Development. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, indicate the equipment and vehicle staging Applicant/ Contractor Concurrent with Grading Permit Application; During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul routes. The designation of construction haul routes would route traffic to avoid residential areas in the City. The requirement for a Construction Management Plan shall be included in Project specifications, subject to verification by the Director of Economic and Community Development prior to final plan approval. Mitigation Measures NA BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standard Conditions of Approval SCA BIO-1 All temporary construction-related nighttime lighting used on-site shall be shielded and/or directed downward to avoid indirect impacts to nocturnal wildlife such that nighttime lighting could increase predation rates. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction SCA BIO-2 All construction contractors, subcontractors, and employees shall comply with the litter and pollution laws and shall institute a litter control/removal program during construction activities to reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic predators such as coyotes, opossums, and common ravens. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction SCA BIO-3 Active nests (nests with chicks or eggs) shall not be removed or disturbed. Nests may be removed or disturbed by a qualified biologist, if not active. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction SCA BIO-4 Construction employees, contractors, and Site visitors shall be prohibited from collecting wildlife. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks SCA BIO-5 Prior to construction activities, the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor shall implement the following best management measures: • Fencing: Chain-link or orange-webbing polypropylene barricade fencing, no less than four feet high with tree protection signs, shall be erected around all undisturbed trees (or tree groups). The protective fence shall be installed at the protected zone boundary of each tree (or tree group), which is defined as five feet beyond the tree canopy dripline. Tree fencing shall be placed around trees that will be adjacent to construction-related activities. An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborist may be required on-site if grading activities occur within the tree’s protected zone. The fencing shall be secured to six-foot, heavy gauge T-bar line posts pounded into the ground a minimum of 18 inches and spaced a minimum of eight feet on- center. Fencing shall be attached to T-bar posts with minimum 14-gauge wire fastened to the top, middle, and bottom of each post. Tree protection signs shall be attached to every fourth post. The contractor shall maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut, and aligned at all times. Fencing shall not be removed without obtaining written authorization from the director of public works. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to and During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Pre-construction Meeting: A pre- construction meeting shall be held between all construction contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders) and an ISA-certified arborist. The meeting shall focus on instructing the contractors about tree protection practices and answering any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground shall provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training shall include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that shall accomplish damage prevention. SCA BIO-6 During construction activities, the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor shall implement the following best management measures: • Equipment Operation and Storage. Construction contractors shall avoid heavy equipment operation around the protected trees. All heavy equipment and vehicles shall, at minimum, stay out of the fenced protected tree zone, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborist. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to and During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Materials Storage and Disposal. Construction contractors shall not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, or concrete overflow, within a tree protected zone and shall remove all foreign debris within the protected zone. However, workers shall leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrient supply. In addition, the contractors shall avoid drainage or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (antifreeze) shall be disposed of properly. The construction contractors shall ensure that equipment be parked at least 50 feet from tree protected zones to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. • Grade Changes. Construction contractors shall ensure that grade changes, including adding fill, not be permitted within any tree protected zone without special written authorization and under supervision by an ISA-certified arborist. Construction workers shall ensure that grade changes made outside of any tree protected zone do not create conditions that allow water to pond at the base of the tree. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Moving Construction Materials. Construction contractors shall ensure that care be exercised when moving construction equipment or supplies near undisturbed protected trees, especially overhead. Workers shall ensure that damage to the trees be avoided when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the trees (even outside of the fenced protected zone). Contractors shall flag aboveground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, scaffold branches, trunks) with high-visibility flagging, such as florescent red or orange. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, conflicting branches may be pruned by an ISA-certified tree worker under supervision by an ISA-certified arborist and shall adhere to ISA standards. • Trenching. Except where specifically approved in writing beforehand, all trenching shall be outside of the fenced tree protected zones. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain roots from retained trees, contractors shall use trenching techniques that include the use of either a root pruner (Dosko root pruner or equivalent) or an Air-Spade to limit root impacts. An ISA-certified arborist shall ensure that all pruning cuts be clean and sharp to minimize ripping, tearing, and Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks fracturing of the root system. Use of root pruning and Air-Spade equipment shall be accompanied only by hand tools to remove soil from trench locations. The trench shall be made no deeper than necessary. • Irrigation. Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30 percent or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. First irrigation shall occur within 48 hours of root pruning. Trees shall be deep watered every two to four weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of three feet. The soil should dry out between watering; a consistently wet soil shall be avoided. One person shall be designated as responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees. Soil moisture shall be checked with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary aboveground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced tree protection zone but never soaking the area located within six feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Canopy Pruning. The construction contractor shall not prune trees until all construction is completed unless standard pruning would reduce conflict between canopy and equipment. All pruning shall be conducted by an ISA- certified tree worker under supervision by an ISA-certified arborist and shall adhere to ISA pruning standards. • Canopy Washing. During construction, the construction contractor shall wash the foliage of trees adjacent to construction activity with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations. • Inspection. An ISA-certified arborist shall inspect the preserved trees adjacent to grading and construction activity monthly for the duration of the Project. A report summarizing Site conditions, observations, tree health, and recommendations for minimizing tree damage shall be submitted by the ISA- certified arborist following each inspection. SCA BIO-7 After construction activities are complete, the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor shall implement the following best management measures: Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Mulch. A four-inch mulch layer shall be provided under the canopy of trees. Mulch shall include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control. • Pruning. Pruning shall only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning shall only take place following a recommendation by and performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)-certified arborist. No more than 20 percent of the canopy shall be removed at any one time. All pruning shall conform to ISA standards. • Watering. The trees should not require regular irrigation other than the 12 months following substantial root pruning, if applicable. However, soil probing may be necessary to accurately monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. • Watering Adjacent Plant Material. All plants near the trees shall be compatible with water requirements of said trees to the extent feasible given the golf course design. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks and Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks allowed to dry out in between watering, rather than with frequent light irrigation. The soil shall not be allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray shall not hit the trunk of any tree. A 60-inch dry-zone shall be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro-spray irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays to the extent feasible. • Chemical Applications. If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control would not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA-certified arborist/licensed pest control advisor or their representative shall be consulted to determine whether application of insecticides is needed to prevent the intrusion of bark-boring beetles and other invading pests. All chemical spraying shall be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor. • Monitoring: An ISA-certified arborist shall inspect the trees retained on-site for a period of five years following the completion of construction activity. Monitoring visits shall be completed quarterly, totaling 20 visits. Following each monitoring visit, a report Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks summarizing Site conditions, observations, tree health, and recommendations for promoting tree health shall be submitted. Additionally, any tree mortality shall be noted, and any tree dying during the monitoring period shall be replaced of the same species as specified for minimum replacement standards in this arborist report. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act, and California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513), if the Project Applicant conducts all Site disturbance/vegetation removal activities (such as removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat) outside the avian nesting season, January 1 through September 15, no further action is necessary. However, if ground disturbance/vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities. If no active nests are identified, the biologist shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur during Site disturbance activities. If vegetation clearing is not completed within five days of a negative Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Final Plan Approval; Prior to and During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development Prior to Final Plan Approval; Prior to and During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks survey, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. If active nests are identified, the City shall be notified immediately, and the qualified biologist shall establish non-disturbance buffers around the active nests (500-foot buffer for raptors/sensitive species and 200- foot buffers for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). The biologist shall monitor these buffers weekly to ensure no work occurs within them, until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles have successfully fledged and are surviving independent from the nest). Work can resume within the buffers when no other active nests are found. Weekly monitoring reports shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Azusa Community Development Department for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. BIO-2 Development of the Project would directly impact or encroach upon 200 trees with good to fair ratings, protected under the City of Azusa Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. To mitigate Project-related impacts, the Project Applicant shall replace the 200 trees at a 3:1 ratio, resulting in the planting of 600 new trees on-site. Replacement trees specified on the landscape plans with a mixture of 5-gallon, 15-gallon, and 24-inch-box trees shall be deducted from the replacement requirement. The remaining number of trees unable to be accommodated on-site shall be mitigated for Applicant/ Contractor Prior to and During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks by payment of in-lieu fees per the City of Azusa Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance per City of Azusa Municipal and Development Code Section 62-191 through 62-201. TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Standard Conditions of Approval NA Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program. The Project Applicant shall prepare and implement a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to address cultural resources issues anticipated at the Site. The WEAP shall include information of the laws and regulations that protect cultural resources, the penalties for a disregard of those laws and regulations, what to do if cultural resources are unexpectedly uncovered during demolition and construction, and contact information for a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, who shall be contacted in the case of unanticipated discoveries. The WEAP shall also include Project-specific information regarding the potential for and types of prehistoric and historic resources that may potentially be encountered. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Construction Director of Economic and Community Development Prior to Construction CUL-2 Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. The Project Applicant shall retain and compensate for services a qualified Applicant/ Contractor Prior to and During Construction Director of Economic and During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-16 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, and a qualified Native American monitor, approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Tribal Government and listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Tribal Contact list for the region, to perform all mitigation measures related to prehistoric and historic cultural resources for the project. An archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be present to monitor all initial ground disturbing activities associated with the project, including but not limited to: demolition, removal of building foundations and asphalt, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals/weed abatement, boring/grading of soils, drilling/trenching for utilities, excavations associated with development, etc. The monitors shall complete daily monitoring logs. The logs will provide descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. In addition, the monitors are required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance, for any archaeological resource(s) encountered during grading and excavation activities pertinent to the provisions outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Division 13, Section 21083.2 (a) through (k). Community Development Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-17 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks If, during initial ground disturbance, the monitors determine that the ground disturbing activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources, and/or the monitors determine that ground disturbances would occur within previously disturbed and non-native soils, the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring may be reduced or eliminated. This decision will be made in consultation with the Native American monitor and the City of Azusa. The final decision to reduce or eliminate monitoring shall be at the discretion of the City of Azusa. If cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work within the immediate area must halt and the find must be evaluated for local and/or State significance. CUL-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are encountered during demolition and ground- disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction CUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If any archaeological resources Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks are unearthed during project demolition and construction activities, the resource shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the property owner regarding treatment and curation of the resource(s). Typically, the Native American tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or as a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall coordinate with the Project Applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan established for the resource(s) shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent Community Development Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. CUL-5 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall halt and a qualified paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for paleontology, shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts. Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction CUL-6 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects. If human remains or associated funerary objects are discovered on-site, work shall be diverted a minimum of 150 feet from the find and an exclusion zone shall be placed around the burial. The qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall call the Applicant/ Contractor During Construction Director of Economic and Community Development During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-20 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks County Coroner. If the County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the County Coroner shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by State law who shall then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the property owner shall arrange a designated location with the Project footprint for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working hours. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, it may be determined that burials should be removed. The applicable Native American tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks notes and sketches. Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The Project Applicant shall consult with the tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. No scientific study or utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains is allowed. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on-site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location mitigated between the tribe and the property owner at the site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Standard Conditions of Approval SCA GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Azusa Building Official, that the recommendations for design Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Chief Building Official During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks and construction identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Multi-Unit Senior Living Development, California Grand Village at Azusa Greens, and all subsequent Addendums, prepared by Calwest Geotechnical Inc., dated January 19, February 27, April 17, and June 6, 2017, and in the Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Multi-Unit Senior Living Residential Development – California Grand Village at Azusa Greens, prepared by Land Phases, Inc., dated November 11, 2016 (revised January 19, 2017) have been incorporated into the Project design, grading plans, and building plans. The Project’s final grading plans, foundation plans, building loads, and specifications shall be reviewed by a State of California Registered Professional Geologist/Registered Professional Engineer to verify that the Geotechnical Reports’ recommendations have been incorporated and updated, as needed. SCA GEO-2 Pursuant to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the City of Azusa shall submit the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Multi-Unit Senior Living Development, California Grand Village at Azusa Greens, and all subsequent Addendums, prepared by Calwest Geotechnical Inc., dated January 19, February 27, April 17, and June 6, 2017, and the Report of Engineering Geologic Study, Proposed Multi-Unit Senior Living Residential City Engineer Within 30 Days After the EIR is Certified and Report is Approved by the City Chief Building Official Within 30 Days After the EIR is Certified and Report is Approved by the City Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks Development – California Grand Village at Azusa Greens, prepared by Land Phases, Inc., dated November 11, 2016 (revised January 19, 2017) to the State Geologist within 30 days after the EIR is certified and the reports are approved by the City of Azusa Building Official. Mitigation Measures NA HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Standard Conditions of Approval SCA HAZ-1 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs). The sampling method to be used shall be based on the statistical probability that construction materials similar in color and texture contain similar amounts of asbestos. In areas where the material appears to be homogeneous in color and texture over a wide area, bulk samples shall be collected at discrete locations from within these areas. In unique or nonhomogeneous areas, discrete samples of potential ACMs shall be collected. The survey shall identify the likelihood that asbestos is present in concentrations greater than 1 percent in construction materials. If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Demolition Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Issuance of any Demolition Permits Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. Common asbestos abatement techniques involve removal, encapsulation, or enclosure. The removal of asbestos is preferred when the material is in poor physical condition and there is sufficient space for the removal technique. The encapsulation of asbestos is preferred when the material has sufficient resistance to ripping, has a hard or sealed surface, or is difficult to reach. The enclosure of asbestos is to be applied when the material is in perfect physical condition, or if the material cannot be removed from the site for reasons of protection against fire, heat, or noise. SCA HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. A portable, field X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer shall be used to identify the locations of potential lead paint, and test accessible painted surfaces. The qualified Environmental Professional shall identify the likelihood that lead is present in concentrations greater than 1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) in/on readily accessible painted surfaces of the buildings. If lead-based paint is found, abatement shall Applicant/ Contractor During Demolition Activities City Engineer During Demolition Activities Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Potential methods to reduce lead dust and waste during removal include wet scraping, wet planning, use of electric heat guns, chemical stripping, and use of local High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) exhaust systems. Lead-based paint removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City Engineer. SCA HAZ-3 If unknown wastes or suspect materials (such as stained soils, odors, and/or unknown debris) are discovered during construction by the contractor that he/she believes may involve hazardous waste/materials, the contractor shall: • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City of Azusa Director of Public Works; • Secure the areas as directed by the City; Applicant/ Contractor During Construction City Engineer During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-26 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Notify the implementing agency’s Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator; and • Perform remedial activities (as required per the implementing agency, and dependent upon the nature of the hazardous materials release) as required under existing regulatory agency standards. Mitigation Measures NA TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Standard Conditions of Approval SCA TRA-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The requirement for a Construction Management Plan shall be incorporated into the Project specifications and subject to verification by the City Engineer prior to final plan approval. The Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, address the following: • Traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation, including the necessary traffic controls to allow for construction-related traffic to enter and exit the Site from Todd Avenue. • Identify the routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Demolition Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-27 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.), to access the Site, traffic controls and detours, and proposed construction phasing plan for the Project. • Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the Applicant to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt, as a result of its operations. The Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City of Azusa Public Works Department, of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • Hauling or transport of oversize loads shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Azusa Public Works Department and/or the adjacent jurisdictions of the City of Irwindale. • Use of local streets shall be prohibited. • Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. • If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, street, curb, and/or gutter along the haul route, the Applicant Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks will be fully responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. • All construction-related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and shall occur on-site. • This Plan shall meet standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD) as well as City of Azusa requirements. The traffic control plans (TCP) shall be prepared by the contractor and submitted to the City Engineer for approval pertaining to off-site work, including sidewalk construction, building façade, underground utilities, driveway construction and any work that would require temporary curb lane closures. The plan shall be developed according to the MUTCD (latest edition) guidelines, including plans for traffic signs, traffic cone arrangements, and flaggers to assist with pedestrian and traffic. • Should the Project utilize State facilities for hauling of construction materials, the Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for review and comment. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks • Should Project construction activities require temporary vehicle lane, bicycle lane, and/or sidewalk closures, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer regarding timing and duration of proposed temporary lane and/or sidewalk closures to ensure the closures do not impact operations of adjacent uses or emergency access. Mitigation Measures TRA-1 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, Project plans shall include the modification of the existing striping on Todd Avenue to provide a 12-foot wide two-way left-turn lane while maintaining two through lanes in both northbound and southbound directions and post the appropriate regulatory signs to restrict on-street parking along this section of Todd Avenue. Figure 10-4 of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers’ California Grand Villages at Azusa Greens Traffic Impact Analysis Report, dated February 6, 2018, presents the conceptual improvement plan for the proposed two-way left-turn lane (also illustrated on Exhibit 5.8-2 of the California Grand Village EIR). All necessary striping, pavement markings and signs are to be installed per California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device and/or the City of Azusa. Verification of the required improvement shall be conducted by the City Engineer. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Demolition Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks TRA-2 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, Project plans shall include the installation of In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWLs) or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFBs) roadside and/or mid-block crosswalks to enhance pedestrian and golf cart crossings along Sierra Madre Avenue. IRWLs are in-pavement flashing-light systems along the crosswalks to warn drivers of oncoming pedestrian and/or golf cart traffic, and RRFBs are user-activated and emit flashing beacons to warn drivers of oncoming pedestrian and/or golf cart traffic. These improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Azusa. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Demolition Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval TRA-3 Prior to issuance of any grading and/or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, Project plans shall include the following Project design features to ensure adequate ingress and egress to the Site. Verification of required Project design features shall be conducted by the City Engineer. • Install a “STOP” sign at the proposed Project Driveway on Todd Avenue per the City of Azusa standards/requirements. • Maintain adequate sight distance for the Project driveway by minimizing obstructions (i.e., landscaping and/or hardscape) within the “limited use area” on either side of the proposed Project driveway as noted in Figures 10-1A and Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Demolition Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks 10-1B of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers’ California Grand Villages at Azusa Greens Traffic Impact Analysis Report, dated February 6, 2018 (also illustrated on Exhibits 5.8-3 and 5.8-4 of the California Grand Village EIR). Landscaping and/or hardscapes shall be designed such that a driver’s clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. All plants and shrubs within the limited use area shall be of the type that will grow no higher than 30 inches above the curb. AIR QUALITY Standard Conditions of Approval SCA AQ-1 The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403: • All active portions of the construction site shall be watered every three hours during daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the Site to prevent excessive amounts of dust; • Pave or apply water every two hours during daily construction activities or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit; During Construction City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks migrating from the Site during site disturbance; • Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non- toxic soil binders shall be applied; • All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; • Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; • Track-out devices such as gravel bed track-out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; • On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; and • All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the Site. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks SCA AQ-2 Per the California Air Resources Board (CARB), in Title 13, Chapter 10, Section 2485, Division 3 of the of the California Code of Regulations, heavy-duty trucks accessing the Site shall not idle for greater than five minutes at any location in order to reduce construction exhaust emissions and construction traffic. Grading plans shall reference that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit; During Construction City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Construction equipment used during site preparation and grading activities greater than 50 horsepower shall meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of a Construction Permit; During Construction City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction NOISE Standard Conditions of Approval SCA NOI-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise- generating Project construction activities shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, unless otherwise allowed through conditions of approval (City of Azusa Municipal Code Section 88.31.020[C][3]). The Project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the City shall conduct periodic inspection at its discretion. Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Building Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction SCA NOI-2 During all Site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction Applicant/ Contractor During Construction City Engineer During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Site. SCA NOI-3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest distance between construction- related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the Site during all Project construction (i.e., to the center). Applicant/ Contractor During Construction City Engineer During Construction Mitigation Measures NOI-1 Grading plans and specifications shall include a temporary noise barrier as shown on Noise Study Figure 4, Construction Noise Analysis Locations and Mitigation, to mitigate construction noise impacts on the Le Med Apartments. The temporary construction noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 12 feet high and be maintained during grading and heavy equipment operations. The barriers shall be solid from the ground to the top of the barrier and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per square foot, which is equivalent to 0.75-inch thick plywood, or provide equivalent noise reduction, such as noise blankets. The barrier design shall optimize the following requirements: (1) the barrier shall be located to maximize the interruption of line of sight between the equipment and the receptor; (2) the length of the barrier shall be selected to block the line Applicant/ Contractor Prior to Issuance of any Grading and/or Building Permits City Engineer During Plan Review/Prior to Final Plan Approval; During Construction Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure/Standard Condition of Approval Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Timing VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Initials Date Remarks of sight between the construction area and the receptors; (3) the barrier shall be located as close as feasible to the receptor or as close as feasible to the construction area. Environmental Impact Report California Grand Village Project Final | February 2019 4-36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank.