Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration

Transcription

1 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project, Parking Expansions, and Projected Campus Growth Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2016

2 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project, Parking Expansions, and Projected Campus Growth Draft Prepared by: 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA November 2016

3 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper.

4 Draft Table of Contents Initial Study... 1 Page 1. Project Title: Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project, Parking Expansions, and Projected Campus Growth Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Carnahan, Project Location Project Sponsor s Name and Address: General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Required Approvals: Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Determination Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources III. Air Quality IV. Biological Resources V. Cultural Resources VI. Geology and Soils VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials IX. Hydrology and Water Quality X. Land Use and Planning XI. Mineral Resources XII. Noise XIII. Population and Housing XIV. Public Services XV. Recreation XVI. Transportation/Traffic XVII. Utilities and Service Systems XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance i

5 Draft References Bibliography Persons Contacted List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location... 2 Figure 2 Project Location... 3 Figure 3 Project Site Plan 11x Figure 4 Building 1 Site Plans... 7 Figure 5 Building 2 Site Plans... 9 Figure 6 Building 1 Elevations Figure 7 Building 2 Elevations Figure 8 KGI Campus Figure 9 Project Landscape Plan Figure 10 Site Photos Figure 11 Site Photos Figure 12 Site Photos Figure 13 Site Photos Figure 14 Shadow Effect Figure 15 KGI Existing Hydrology Figure 16 KGI Proposed Hydrology Figure 17 Noise Locations Figure 18 Temporary Parking List of Tables Table 1 Types and Sizes of Residential Units... 4 Table 2 Keck Graduate Institute Growth Projections Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Table 4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Table 5 Estimated Construction Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions Table 6 Estimated Project Operational Emissions Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Table 8 Proposed Project Consistency with Claremont Sustainable City Plan Table 9 Summary of Regulatory Database Search Table th Percentile and 25-year Storm Peak Flow Velocities Table 12 Claremont Land Use/Noise Guidelines and Standards ii

6 Draft Table 13 Claremont Land Use/Noise Guidelines (General Plan) Table 14 Measured Noise Levels Table 15 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure Table 16 Comparison of Pre-Project and Post-Project Traffic Noise On Local Roadways Table 17 Comparison of Cumulative Traffic Noise On Local Roadways Table 18 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Table 19 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Table 20 Construction Noise Levels by Phase Table 21 Circulation System Performance Criteria Table 22 Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Table 23 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Conditions Table 24 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 25 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 without Project Table 26 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 with Project Table 27 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 with Project Mitigation Table 28 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 without Project Table 29 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 with Project Table 30 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Build-Out Year 2030 without Project Table 31 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 with Project Table 32 Existing (2014) Conditions Overall Table 33 Opening Year 2018 Conditions Parking Demand Requirement Table 34 Site Distance Requirements Table 35 Current and Planned Water Supplies for the Claremont System Table 36 Metropolitan Water Supply in Normal, Single and Multiple Dry Years Table 37 Per Capita Solid Waste Diversion Rates Table 38 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E CalEEMod Results Geotechnical Study Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Hydrology and Water Quality Study Traffic Noise Model Results iii

7 Draft Appendix Fa Traffic and Parking Study Appendix Fb Parking Management Plan Appendix G Sewer Study iv

8 Draft INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project, Parking Expansions, and Projected Campus Growth 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 207 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Carnahan, Project Location: Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) campus, and KGI owned parcels are located at 535 Watson Drive, Claremont, California, and are bound by Wharton Drive to the north, Arrow Highway to the south, Bucknell Avenue to the east, and Cambridge Avenue to the west (APNs: and ). The Technip Offices at 555 W. Arrow Highway (APN ), off campus building at 215 York Place (APNs and ), and 191 Indian Hill Boulevard (APN ) are all owned by KGI and are considered part of the project site. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site and its local vicinity. 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Hanover Pacific, LLC 2306 Main Street, Suite 1190 Irvine, CA For Keck Graduate Institute 535 Watson Drive Claremont, CA General Plan Designation: Institutional and Business Park 7. Zoning: Institutional Education (IE) and Business/Industrial Park (B/IP) 1

9 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration ^_ P A C I F I C O C E A N Miles Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors ^_ Project Location ± Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, ^_ Regional Location Figure 1 2

10 York Pl Iolab Dr Cornell Ave N Bucknell Ave Oberlin Ave Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration W 1St St Santa Fe St Wharton Dr Watson Dr W Arrow Hwy Geneva Ave Project Site ± Feet Imagery provided by Google and its licensors Cinderella Dr Notre Dame Rd Virginia Rd Project Location Figure 2 3

11 Draft 8. Description of Project: The proposed project involves the development of new mixed-use buildings for student housing, associated expansion of parking areas, and other related improvements to the existing Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) campus and KGI-owned parcels. Development of the approximately acre project site would also accommodate growth of the school from 456 students and faculty/staff in the academic year to 723 students and faculty/staff in the academic year. The KGI campus is a graduate school that is part of a consortium of seven schools referred to as the Claremont Colleges system. The project sponsor, Hanover Pacific, LLC, is a developer that specializes in the development of campus housing for universities and colleges. The KGI campus currently contains four buildings, one of which is leased to Technip USA. The campus also includes nine parking lots (refer to Figure 2). The following describes each of the KGI campus improvements under the proposed project. New Buildings Two new four-story KGI campus buildings would be located on the existing vacant lot at the southwest corner of Bucknell Avenue and Wharton Drive/Santa Fe Street (Figure 3). The buildings would contain 292 residential units, academic space (six classrooms, 13 study/meeting rooms, a café/lounge, and a leasing office/lounge), and ancillary uses. The floor area for both buildings would total approximately 225,295 square feet and include the following: 162,922 square feet of residential space; 50,565 square feet of common space; a 1,771 square foot fitness center, and 10,037 square feet of academic space. Each residential unit would contain a bathroom for each room and kitchen area. The 292 units would include the types and sizes of units shown in Table 1. Table 1 Types and Sizes of Residential Units Type of Unit Number of Units Size (sf/unit) Percentage Studio One Bedroom to Two-Bedroom to Total , The uses for each building are as follows: Building #1. This building would be four stories tall. The first floor would include academic classrooms, a lounge/café, study/meeting rooms, indoor bicycle storage, and a leasing office/lounge. The other three floors would consist of residential units and other ancillary uses such as laundry and study/meeting rooms. The top floor would also contain an outdoor deck patio for resident use (refer to Figure 4). Building #2. This building would consist of four floors of residential units and ancillary uses such as laundry and study/meeting rooms. The fourth floor would also include three outdoor deck patios. The building would be designed with an interior private courtyard including a swimming pool, spa, barbeque, seating areas, and a single-story fitness/restroom building (refer to Figure 5). 4

12 CARPOOL CARPOOL ONLY ONLY Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration C LOT COVERAGE WHARTON DRIVE TOTAL LOT AREA 627,976 SF BUILDING AREAS ,282 SF ,401 SF BUILDING 1 15,901 SF BUILDING 2 43,319 SF PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES 242,811 SF TOTAL LOT COVERED 369,714SF 535 ±33,282 SF CARPOOL ONLY ZIPCAR RESERVED BUILDING 2 ±43,319 SF BUCKNELL AVENUE COVERAGE 59 % LANDSCAPE AREAS 250,086 SF OPEN SPACE 40 % KECK GRADUATE HOUSING LEGEND BUILDING AREAS PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES BUILDING 1 ±15,901 SF LANDSCAPED AREAS KGI CAMPUS 517 ±34,401 SF Feet / Source: Architecture Design Collaborative 5 Project Site Plan Figure 3

13 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 27 Feet / Building 1 Site Plans Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, Figure 4

14 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration MEETING ROOM STAIR #4 MEETING ROOM STAIR #4 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1.1 LOBBY P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1.1.2 TRASH ROOM STORAGE TRASH STORAGE FOOD WASTE RECYCLING P1 P2 P2 P2 P1 F1 P2 P2 P2 P1 LAUNDRY LAUNDRY P2 P2 SHED ROOF P2 M. FITNESS POOL P2 P2 W. P1.1 P1.1 P1.1 P2 P1.1 P2 P2 MEETING ROOM P2 P2 P2 P2 ELEV. P2.1 P2 MEETING ROOM P2 P2 P2 P2 ELEV. P2.1 STAIR #3 P2 WALKWAY ABOVE MECH. STAIR #3 P2 MECH. ELEV. LOBBY MECH. P2 P2 STAIR #5 BUILDING 2 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN ELEV. MECH P2 P2 STAIR #5 BUILDING 2 - SECOND-THIRD FLOOR PLAN RESIDENT ROOF DECK RESIDENT ROOF DECK STAIR #4 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2.2 ROOF DECK OVER LEVEL 3 ROOF DECK OVER LEVEL 3 TRASH STORAGE FLAT ROOF, TYP. P1 P1 P2 P2 P2 LAUNDRY P2 SHED ROOF P2 P2 P1 P2 RESITDENT ROOF DECK ROOF DECK OVER LEVEL 3 P2 P2 MEETING ROOM P2 ELEV. P2.1 P2 P2 P2 CONDENSERS, TYP. ELEV. STAIR #2 MECH. STAIR #3 P2 STAIR #5 ELEV. MECH. ELEV. P2 BUILDING 2 - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 2 - ROOF PLAN / 0 18 Feet Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Figure 5 9

15 Draft Due to the sloped topography of the site, the height of the proposed buildings would vary from a minimum of 43 feet above grade to a maximum of 56 feet above grade (refer to Figure 6 and Figure 7). The proposed locations for these buildings have been adjusted toward the street compared to plans included in a previous preliminary review of the project by the City. This change was made to be compatible with neighborhood streetscape characteristics (existing and future) and in order to accommodate Los Angeles Fire Department access requirements. As currently designed, these buildings would be feet from the property line (18-27 from the street curb), and would need to be granted a reduction in the City s required 25-foot street setback (which is measured from the property line). Parking There are currently nine parking lots distributed across the KGI campus and KGI-owned parcels. Three of the existing lots (E, F, and I) would be expanded and one new parking lot would be constructed, providing a total of 10 parking lots areas (refer to Figure 8). Approximately 212 new parking spaces would be added for a total of 872 parking spaces on the KGI campus. The increase in parking would support the increase in students and faculty/staff over the next few years. The new parking lot area would be constructed between current northernmost KGI building (535 Watson Drive) and the proposed mixed-use buildings. The largest of these parking expansion areas would be located on the southwest side of the Technip Office building along Arrow Highway. Plans also include a possible expansion to the front (north) Technip parking lot (G), which could add approximately 31 new spaces if needed in the future. This expansion is not part of the planned construction at this time, but is noted in the plans as a potential location of adding additional parking in the future. If needed, parking for construction activities and the increase in parking during the opening year is planned to be located at 121 S. Indian Hill Boulevard. KGI recently acquired ownership of this site, which has a surplus of 106 spaces that are not needed by the existing building/use and which could be utilized for the project temporarily. Approximately 144 bicycle racks would be installed in an indoor storage area in the proposed mixed-0use Building #1 and 42 additional racks are proposed to be placed outside of the mixeduse buildings. Stormwater Retention Improvements Stormwater retention improvements would include a new vegetated stormwater basin on a portion of the existing large turf grass area located between Arrow Highway and the Technip USA-leased building. An underground detention tank is proposed between mixed-use Building #1 and the existing parking lot located to the south. Additional stormwater improvements include landscape planter areas designed to capture stormwater and the use of green street principles on adjacent public streets. Street Improvements Public street improvements such as sidewalks, street lights, and street trees would be enhanced and/or added to portions of the KGI campus street frontage areas. Public crosswalk areas would also be added to the intersections of Bucknell Avenue and Wharton/Santa Fe and 11

16 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration MATERIAL LEGEND 1 EXTERIOR PLASTER, LIGHT SAND FINISH 2 EXTERIOR PLASTER, SMOOTH FINISH 3 METAL WALL PANEL SYSTEM 4 STORE FRONT WINDOW 5 HORIZONTAL PLASTER CHANNELS 6 CANOPY EXTERIOR OR PLASTER SMOOTH FINISH 7 PLASTER SCREENS 8 PAINTED METAL CANOPY 0 Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Building 1 Elevations Feet / Figure 6

17 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration MATERIAL LEGEND 1 EXTERIOR PLASTER, LIGHT SAND FINISH EXTERIOR PLASTER, SMOOTH FINISH METAL WALL PANEL SYSTEM STORE FRONT WINDOW HORIZONTAL PLASTER CHANNELS CANOPY EXTERIOR OR PLASTER SMOOTH FINISH PLASTER SCREENS PAINTED METAL CANOPY 0 27 Feet / Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Building 2 Elevations Figure 7 13

18 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration SITE SUMMARY Keck Campus Site Area Technip Site Area York Site Area Total KGI Property 627,976 SF 352,413 SF 46,783 SF 1,027, Acres 8.09 Acres 1.07 Acres Acres BUILDING AREAS Building 535 Building 517 Building 1 (4 Levels) Building 2 (4 Levels) 0 Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 KGI Campus Proposed and Existing Parking 14 33,282 SF 34,401 SF 63,604 SF 167,892 SF 96 Feet / Figure 8

19 Draft Bucknell Avenue and Watson Drive. Green Street bio-design principles would be added to new street improvements to improve stormwater management and include landscaped infiltration areas within the parkway on Wharton Drive and within the new street planter bulb outs (angled curb cuts). Landscaping and Lighting New landscaping would be added along the Arrow Highway frontage for new parking lot and stormwater basin screening. A public plaza and private courtyard for the new buildings would be landscaped. The landscape plan included with the proposed project shows the entire site (KGI campus and KGI owned properties) and depicts the proposed landscape improvements planned for the new mixed-use buildings, public plaza, private courtyard, the various parking expansions areas and along the public streets. Approximately 66 of the 412 existing trees would be removed and replaced with 210 new trees (refer to Figure 9). Additionally, a water element would be added to the public plaza and a pool/spa within the private courtyard. New parking lot and private sidewalk lighting is included in the plans for the parking lots on post tops and steps, along pathways and throughout the improvements to the KGI campus. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project would commence in Fall 2017 and is anticipated to last approximately 598 days, so the estimated completion would be late summer It is anticipated that approximately 5,100 cubic yards of soil would be moved off-site during construction. The truck routes for heavy or oversized vehicles would be restricted to the designated routes under Chapter of the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC). Lot Line Adjustment Reconfigure existing property lines so that the new project housing is located on its own parcel. Campus Growth KGI anticipates its campus population will increase over the next few years as a result of a new School of Pharmacy program and additional enrollment and faculty hires, as well as an increase with the construction of the housing units, which includes both KGI students, and for a temporary period (three to four academic years) CGU students residing in the new housing. The total population (including CGU students) is anticipated to increase from 456 ( academic year) to its peak at 881 ( academic year) and then decrease to 723 ( academic years) once CGU students are phased out of the housing. Campus growth projections are shown in Table 2. 15

20 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Feet / Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Project Landscape Plan Figure 9 16

21 Draft Academic Year Table 2 Keck Graduate Institute Growth Projections Campus Non-Resident Population Forecast Student Faculty/Staff Off-Site 3 Total KGI Student Residents Project Non-KGI Residents Source: Keck Graduate Institute Notes: 1 Campus housing project opening year. 2 Hanover Pacific LLS, Memorandum dated March 26, KGI staff will be relocated to an off-site facility. Transfer to be completed by the start of academic year. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site encompasses the KGI campus, located in southwestern Claremont in an urban setting. KGI is part of a consortium of seven schools referred to as the Claremont Colleges system, but its campus is located about 0.5 mile southwest of the other school campuses. The topography of the project site is slightly south sloping with an elevation range of approximately 1,255 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 997 feet above MSL. There are three existing KGI buildings on the project site as well as the Technip building. The site for the two proposed buildings and temporary parking area is currently vacant, and the proposed Technip parking area is currently a landscaped lawn with trees at the southwest corner of the project site along Arrow Highway. The project site is adjacent to industrial uses to the west on properties zoned Business/ Industrial Park (B/IP). Commercial uses are to the east on properties zoned Commercial Professional (CP) and Commercial Freeway (CF). Mixed residential-commercial use development abuts the site to the north, and a mix of industrial and commercial development is located to the east. A mini-storage business is located south of the proposed mixed-use buildings and parking lot G. Single-family residential development is located to the south of Arrow Highway and south of the project site. The Claremont Village Expansion, which is zoned Specific Plan Area 8, is located north of the project site. 10. Required Approvals: The following approvals would be needed: Traffic and Transportation Committee Review of Traffic Study Architectural Commission design review approval of all new buildings and landscaping other site changes, including the setback reduction along the streets for the new buildings A Special Use and Development Permit for short term parking on the Vortox property during construction and during CGU years Total 17

22 Draft permits relating to construction including building permit, grading permit, and encroachment permit for street work Lot line adjustment for relocation for existing property lines (City Council) Parkland fee reduction request (City Council) Adoption of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site Approval by Los Angeles County Fire Department No other agency approvals are required. 18

23 Draft ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is Potentially Significant or Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 19

24 Draft Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: D II D D D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures U1at are imposed upon Uw proposed project, nothing furu1er is required. Signature 0:-1'. '6\. 2.0lf, Date ' 20

25 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? According to the Claremont General Plan Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element (Claremont, 2009), the (City) considers views of the San Gabriel Mountains and its foothills to be the predominant scenic vistas in the City. However, because of the surrounding dense urban fabric and mature trees, views of the mountains and foothills are relatively limited on the project site. The site for the two proposed mixed-use buildings is currently vacant; however, the surrounding area is developed with commercial, industrial, and residential structures to the north, south, east, and west. The topography of the area is generally flat sloping slighting south, a condition that does not provide any prominent vantage points from which to observe surrounding scenic vistas (Figures 10 through 13). The proposed project may partially block some views of the San Gabriel Mountains and its foothills from public right-of-ways surrounding the site; however, impacts would be less than significant because views are already largely obscured by the existing development. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no State highways either designated as, or eligible for, designation within the of the project site. The closest such highways are State Highway 39 (San Gabriel Canyon Road), north 21

26 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Site Photos Figure 10 22

27 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Site Photos Figure 11 23

28 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Site Photos Figure 12 24

29 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Architecture Design Collaborative, 2016 Site Photos Figure 13 25

30 of the 210 freeway, State Highway 142 (Carbon Canyon Road) west of the 71 freeway, and State Highway 57 (the Orange freeway) south of the 60 freeway (California Department of Transportation, 2011). Each of these roads are 10 or more miles away from the project site. Additionally, Route 66 (Foothill Boulevard) is approximately 0.9 miles north of the project site. Although not a designated State Scenic Highway, Route 66 is often considered a historic roadway. There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings within the project site that would be affected by project development. Project development would require fire access to the proposed buildings, which would result in reduced setbacks along Bucknell Avenue or Wharton Drive. Reduced setbacks would not have an impact on any trees since there are no existing trees along either street. Construction of the proposed project would remove approximately 66 of the 478 trees on the project site. These trees have aesthetic value and could be considered a scenic resource. However, the applicant would compensate for the removal of 66 trees by planting approximately 210 new trees. Additionally, the trees proposed for removal are not within a designated or eligible scenic highway, thus there would be no impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. NO IMPACT c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Claremont is located at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, with tree-lined streets that create an urban forest that is one of the City s defining features. The City has enhanced its aesthetics by implementing design standards and developing a walkable community. An Architectural Commission design review process was established to maintain the aesthetic qualities of the City (, 2009). The following discusses temporary construction effects, longterm visual effects, and shadow effects as they relate to the visual character or quality of the site and surrounding area. Temporary Construction Effects Construction activities would temporarily alter the visual quality of the site through export of excavated materials, construction of below-grade foundations, building construction, and landscaping. Construction activities would include the storage of equipment and materials, potentially including placement of a crane or cranes during the construction of the upper stories of the buildings. Due to the temporary nature of construction, these activities would not permanently degrade or modify the existing aesthetic image of the campus or cause a substantial long-term contrast with the visual character of the surrounding area. Long Term Visual Effects The site of the two proposed mixed-use buildings is on a completely vacant portion of the campus that does not contain any notable visual qualities. Two new parking lot areas would be constructed on the project site: the first on the vacant parcel adjacent to the proposed buildings and the second on a portion of the existing lawn to the west of the Technip Offices (see Figures 10 through 13). The campus contains other multi-story buildings that are one- or two-stories in height. The area to the north of the project site, across the railroad tracks, contains three-story 26

31 buildings and a four-story building has been approved for development on a site approximately one on the same site. The Indian Hill Specific Plan is being proposed for the area east of the project site and would include mixed-use development that would be a high density urban environment. Therefore, the buildings that would be developed under the proposed project would be of similar scale as buildings in the project vicinity. The proposed buildings would have cohesive designs and would be reviewed by the City s Architectural Commission (AC). The proposed colors for AC consideration would be neutral colors such as greys and browns to match the surrounding buildings. The accent color for the buildings would be teal blue, the official KGI school color. Implementation of the proposed project would also result in visual changes from Arrow Highway due to the removal of the existing sloped lawn area adjacent to the Technip Offices and the construction of a parking lot and storm water bio-basin. However, the area in front of the parking lot would be graded and enhanced with screen plantings, and the bio-basin would be designed to be vegetated and blend naturally with the adjacent grading and landscaping. Implementation of these components of the project would reduce potential visual impacts from Arrow Highway. Additionally, the proposed project would remove 66 of the 478 trees on the project site; however, the applicant would compensate for the removal of 66 trees by planting 210 new trees to maintain the visual character of the campus. Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character and quality of the project site. These new trees will be in a variety of species, many of which will have large canopies (oaks, sycamores, camphor and ginkgo) to help shade the parking areas and provide scale adequate to screen the new fourstory mixed-use buildings. In addition, planter areas within parking areas have been enlarged to provide adequate soil area to allow for these larger trees species to thrive and eventually achieve the large scale canopy that is intended. Shadow Effects Shadow impacts are considered significant as the project would create new sources of shade or shadow which would adversely affect existing shade/shadow-sensitive structures or uses. Facilities and operations sensitive to the effects of shading include solar collectors; nurseries; primarily outdoor-oriented retail uses; or routinely useable outdoor spaces associated with recreational, institutional (e.g., schools), or residential land uses. These uses are considered sensitive because sunlight is important to function, physical comfort, and/or commerce. The shadow-sensitive uses nearest to the project site are residences in the Village Expansion area to the north of the proposed buildings. As shown in Figure 14, the proposed buildings would not have substantial shadow effects on the residential community to the north and west of the project site and, therefore, would not create shadows on any sensitive receptors. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is within an urbanized area with high levels of existing light and glare. The primary sources of light adjacent to the project site include lighting associated with existing campus buildings and parking lots, as well as the residential community and industrial 27

32 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: KGI, Parking Management Plan Buildings Shadow Effect Figure 14 28

33 buildings adjacent to the project site. The primary source of glare within the project site vicinity is the sun s reflection from metallic and glass surfaces on vehicles parked within the campus parking lots and adjacent land uses. The following discusses the potential project impacts associated with light and glare. Light Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to increase light on and off campus through lighting features associated with the proposed buildings, expansion of three parking lots, and construction of two new parking lots. Specifically, new lighting would be added in the parking lots, on post tops and steps, along pathways, and surrounding the proposed fountain. This lighting may have significant impacts on sensitive light receptors; however, the project must comply with standards set forth by the Claremont Municipal Code (CMC). CMC Section , Outdoor Lighting and Glare, requires outdoor light fixtures to be designed, installed, and maintained to direct light only onto the property on which the light source is located. It also states that excessive light and glare shall be limited by the use of appropriate light fixtures, shielding devices and directional lighting methods. Section A.3 states, [a]ny indirect illumination of neighboring residential properties or uses shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles (fc) at the property line as measured horizontally and vertically from adjacent grade to a height of fourteen (14) feet. Parking areas that are newly constructed with six or more spaces are also subject to lighting standards (CMC Section ), which include requirements for full cutoff fixtures mounted on relatively low poles. Therefore, upon compliance with the CMC, impacts to outdoor lighting are considered less than significant. Glare The nine existing parking lots in the project site would continue to be utilized by automobiles and other vehicles that can create glare due to reflections from vehicle windows and bodies. The proposed project would create new sources of glare from reflective surfaces with the expansion of the three existing parking lots and the addition two new parking lots. The largest of the two proposed parking lots would be located on the southwest side of the Technip Offices along Arrow Highway. The glare that would be produced by the additional 212 parking spaces would not be significant because the area is already urbanized and includes the presence of high traffic volumes and 660 existing parking stalls. Therefore, the additional parked vehicles anticipated with the proposed parking lots would contribute to the existing glare, but would not create a new source of substantial glare or substantially alter existing glare conditions. In addition, the large canopy shade trees and proposed landscaping and grading are anticipated to help screen the proposed parking expansion project from Arrow Highway, which would reduce potential glare impacts. Exterior windows on the proposed buildings could incrementally increase the reflected sunlight during certain times of the day, and project lighting could incrementally increase light levels on adjacent properties. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES 1 would ensure that the building materials for the proposed buildings are reviewed by the City, and highly reflective building materials are prohibited. With implementation of this measure, impacts associated with glare would be less than significant. 29

34 Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to sensitive receptors from glare. AES-1 Glare. Prior to issuance of building permits, all proposed project structures shall be reviewed during the s standard review process to ensure that proposed building materials do not create glare in a manner that could endanger motorists on adjacent roadways or pilots in nearby airspace, create a nuisance for surrounding properties or uses, or otherwise impact the community. Use of reflective materials such as polished metal or glass shall be prohibited unless the applicant can provide substantial evidence prepared by a qualified professional to the City s Community Development Director that use of such materials will not cause glare impacts on surrounding properties or roadways. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 30

35 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 31

36 a-e) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not zoned for agricultural or forestry purposes by the City zoning code, nor is it subject to a Williamson Act Contract (California Department of Conservation [DOC], 2013). Moreover, the project site is not located in an area designated as Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California DOC, 2016). The project site does not meet the definition of forest land or timberland under Public Resources Code section 12220(g), Public Resources Code section 4526, or Government Code section 51104(g). The project would not lead to the loss or conversion of farmland, forest land, or timberland. The proposed use of the project site would not produce changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. As such, no impact would occur with respect to farmland, forest land, or timberland. NO IMPACT 32

37 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Claremont is within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in attainment or nonattainment. The part of the Basin within which the project site is located is in nonattainment for both federal and State standards for ozone, PM 10, PM 2.5, and lead, as well as the State standard for nitrogen dioxide (California Air Resources Board, 2014). Therefore, the Basin currently exceeds several State and federal ambient air quality standards and is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. This non-attainment status is a result of several factors, the primary factors being the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate pollutants from the air, and the number, type, and density of emission sources within the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that provides a strategy for the attainment of State and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD recommends the use of quantitative thresholds to determine the significance of temporary construction-related pollutant emissions and project operations. These thresholds are shown in Table 3. 33

38 Pollutant Table 3 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Operation Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds Construction Thresholds NO X 55 lbs/day 100 lbs/day ROG 1 55 lbs/day 75 lbs/day PM lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM lbs/day 55 lbs/day SO X 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day 1 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. ROG are also referred to as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). Source: SCAQMD, 2011 In addition to regional air quality thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptors, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor, etc. LSTs only apply to emissions within a fixed stationary location, including idling emissions during both project construction and operation. LSTs have been developed for NO x, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. LSTs do not apply to mobile sources such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD, 2008). As such, LSTs for construction emissions and fixed stationary source operational emissions would apply to the proposed project. LSTs have been developed for emissions within areas up to five acres in size, with air pollutant modeling recommended for activity within larger areas. The project area is approximately acres, and is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 10 (SRA-10), Pomona/Walnut Valley, which includes the City of Claremont. According to the SCAQMD s publication, Final Localized Significant (LST) Thresholds Methodology, the use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local agencies. Though the overall project site is acres in size, construction would not occur on more than five acres on any day and that the estimate includes all the KGI owned land that currently make up KGI and Technip Offices, of which most of which will not be impacted by the proposed construction. The LSTs for construction on a five-acre site in SRA-10 are shown in Table 4. 34

39 Table 4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Pollutant Allowable emissions from a 5-acre site in SRA-10 for a receptor 82 feet away Gradual conversion of NO X to NO CO 1,566 PM PM Source: SCAQMD,2008 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the most recent AQMP adopted by SCAQMD and was developed using Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population forecasts. According to the Department of Finance, Claremont has a current population of 36,282 (California DOF, 2015). SCAG forecasts that the population of Claremont will grow to 38,200 by 2035, an increase of 1,918 (5 percent). Development of the proposed project would involve the construction of 292 new student housing units. Based on the number of residential units for single- or double-occupancy units, the housing units would have a total of 396 beds. The proposed project would provide oncampus housing and would increase the number of students and faculty/staff on the KGI campus from 456 to 881 and decrease to 723 persons. Although it is likely that not all of the students would live in the, this analysis assumes the worst case scenario where all 723 of the new students and faculty/staff would live in Claremont. Therefore, if all 723 additional persons came from outside Claremont and lived in Claremont while they were at KGI, they would lead to a direct population growth in the City of 723 persons. This increase when compared to the existing city population of 36,218 (California DOF, 2016) would lead to a population of 36,941 persons in Claremont, an increase of 1.9 percent. Direct population growth associated with implementation of the proposed project is therefore within the SCAG growth forecasts of 38,200 persons for 2035 (SCAG, 2016). Since growth facilitated by the proposed project would be consistent with the SCAG population growth forecasts for the city, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b-c) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 35

40 Potential emission sources from development the proposed project include emissions from various stationary, area, and mobile sources. Emissions associated with the proposed project are analyzed below and assume compliance with several SCAQMD rules. SCAQMD rules applicable to the proposed project include. Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) which requires the use of stringent best available control measures to minimize PM 10 emissions during grading and construction activities. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM 10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust (see also Rule 1186). Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) which requires reductions in the VOC content of coatings, with a substantial reduction in the VOC content limit for flat coatings. This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories. Construction Emissions Construction emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (Version ). The construction phases used in the analysis include: 1) site preparation; 2) grading; 3) building construction; 4) architectural coating; and, 5) paving. Construction equipment would include but is not limited to tractors, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, dozers, air compressors, and saws (see Appendix A for construction equipment mixes utilized in the analysis). Table 4 shows estimated daily emissions during each phase of construction. Mandatory emission reduction measures, such as dust control and 15 mph off-road vehicle speeds, required by SCAQMD Rule 403, were included. The LST thresholds only apply to those emissions generated by onsite construction activities, such as emissions from onsite grading, and do not apply to offsite mobile emissions. The LST thresholds for sensitive receptors 82 feet (25 meters) from the project site were used to illustrate the closest receptors, which are residences. As summarized in Table 5 construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds or LSTs. 36

41 Table 5 Estimated Construction Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5 SO X Maximum Daily Emissions a SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Maximum On-Site Emissions b Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) c n/a 236 1, n/a Threshold Exceeded? n/a No No No No n/a n/a = not applicable a All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for calculations. Results shown in Table 2.1, Mitigated Construction, in CalEEMod winter worksheets. Winter emissions were used as a worst-case scenario. Includes emissions associated with site grading, offsite earth export, and worker trips to and from the project site. Calculations assume adherence to the conditions listed previously that are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust as well as Rule 1113 regarding low-voc coatings. Lead emissions are not estimated in CalEEMod as they are assumed to be negligible. b LSTs only apply to on-site emissions and do not apply to mobile emissions (the majority of operational emissions). Therefore, only on-site construction emissions are compared to LSTs. c LSTs are for a 5-acre project in SRA-10 within a distance of 82 feet from the site boundary Operational Emissions Long-term operation emissions associated with the proposed project are associated with vehicle trips (mobile emissions) and the use of natural gas, consumer products, and architectural coatings (area source emissions) upon buildout of the project. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project (shown in Table 6) were quantified using CalEEMod (Version ) based on the proposed land use and the gross amount of proposed floor area (included in Appendix A). Sources Table 6 Estimated Project Operational Emissions Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5 SO X Area <0.1 Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Mobile Total Emissions (lbs/day) SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for calculations. Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 37

42 Conclusion Project emissions would be below the SCAQMD s thresholds for construction and operational emissions and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed in Air Quality impacts b and c the proposed project would not exceed air quality thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project involves the construction of two four-story mixed-use buildings, three parking lot expansions, two parking lot additions, landscaping, and stormwater collection basins, and street improvements. The proposed stormwater basins are not anticipated to produce odors because they will be designed to percolate water. Detention basins are designed to collect standing water during a limited period of time (no more than 96 hours per Los Angeles County standards). Therefore, the basins would not collect standing water that would have the potential to produce odors. The basins would also be subject to regular maintenance required by project stormwater maintenance agreements. The other project components are not listed on Figure 4-3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook as uses that require analysis of odor impacts. Further, residential and parking uses are not identified on Figure 5-5 (Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints) of the Handbook. Substantial objectionable odors are normally associated with such uses as agriculture, wastewater treatment, industrial facilities, or landfills. Therefore, the proposed residential project would not produce long-term objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, impacts are considered less than significant. Odors would be generated by the operation of equipment during the construction phases of the proposed project. Odors associated with construction machinery would be those of diesel machinery, which includes the smells of oil or diesel fuels. The odors would be limited to the time when construction equipment is operating. Potential impacts would be temporary during the construction period, and therefore, would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 38

43 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 39

44 The project site is located within a densely urbanized area and does not contain any suitable habitat to support special-status species or species of special concern, except for the 478 trees located on the project site. Of the 478 trees on the project site 66 trees would be removed as part of the proposed project. Both native and non-native trees likely serve as nesting habitat for a variety of common, urbanadapted and tolerant species, such as acorn woodpecker and California towhee that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Potential impacts associated with habitat removal and disturbance from development of the proposed project could occur if site construction occurs during the nesting season from February 1 August 31, as defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. To ensure that migratory bird species are not impacted as a result of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level. BIO-1 Nesting Bird Survey. Vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance must occur either: a) Outside the bird and raptor breeding season, which is typically February 1 through August 31 (as early as January 1 for some raptors), or b) If vegetation clearing occurs during the breeding season, a preconstruction bird nesting survey shall be conducted not more than one week prior to vegetation clearing to determine the locations of nesting birds. The bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a nesting bird or special status species is located, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions may be taken. If an active bird nest is found, a minimum 250-foot buffer (or as otherwise directed by CDFW) would be established surrounding the nest(s). The results of the nesting bird survey(s) and any buffer efforts as a result of those surveys shall be documented in a brief letter report and submitted to the City and the CDFW prior to commencement of clearing. c) Only activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist in coordination with the construction contractor may occur within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. Activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone by the biologist may include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Upon confirmation from the biologist that the nest is no longer active, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 40

45 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was reviewed to determine is any riparian habitat has been documented on the project site. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat identified by the NWI (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). See responses to impact a above and impact c below. NO IMPACT c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Wetlands are defined under the Federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). The NWI was reviewed to determine if any wetland and/or non-wetland waters had been previously documented and mapped on or in the vicinity of the project site. The National Wetlands Mapper does not show any federally protected streams, wetlands, or other water bodies or any riparian habitat on site, or adjacent to, or within the proximity of the project site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). The nearest USFWS-designated wetland is a freshwater pond/wetland, approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site. Construction and operational related runoff from the project site would discharge into the existing storm drain system located on Arrow Highway, which would then discharge into Thompson Creek, and ultimately discharge into the San Gabriel River watershed. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate pollutants that could adversely affect the water quality of Thompson Creek, if effective measures were not used to keep pollutants out of stormwater and remove pollutants from stormwater. However, adherence to the BMPs contained in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) would reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat degradation of downstream receiving waters such as Thompson Creek. The City also protects the water quality of receiving waters through its stormwater and runoff pollution control ordinance (Chapter 8.28 [Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control] of the CMC). The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health and safety of the residents of the City by protecting the beneficial uses, marine habitats, and ecosystems of receiving waters from pollutants carried by stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The intent of this ordinance is to enhance and protect the water quality of receiving waters consistent with the Clean Water Act. Project implementation would be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. For example, Section (Discharge to the Storm Drain System) prohibits littering and other discharge of polluting and damaging substances into the City s storm drain system or receiving water and Section (Runoff Management Requirements) requires owners or occupants of any property to comply with the good housekeeping requirements outlined in this section. Furthermore, Section F (New Development and 41

46 Redevelopment) requires that redevelopment and new development projects be evaluated by the City prior to construction for their potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system or receiving waters based on the intended land use. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact federally protected wetlands in the project vicinity. No impact to wetlands would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. NO IMPACT d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project site is in an area that lacks native biological habitats and is surrounded by business and industrial development. The undeveloped areas within the project site have been cleared of vegetation, thus containing no suitable habitat that would be utilized as part of a wildlife corridor. The project site does, however, include a number of mostly nonnative trees along the northern and northeastern boundaries of the project site. Although, mostly nonnative, these trees may provide suitable habitat, including nesting habitat, for migratory birds under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and under Section 3513 et seq of the California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code. CDFW Code 3513 provides protection of the CDFW Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. The MBTA implements the United States commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Under the provisions of the MBTA, it is unlawful by the means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by USFWS. The term take is defined by USFWS regulation to mean pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with MBTA. Approximately 66 of the 478 trees on the project site would be removed as part of the proposed project. Removal of these trees would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species because 210 new trees would be planted as part of the proposed project, according to the project landscape plan, providing for sufficient species movement. Consequently, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project applicant would be required to comply with MBTA by either avoiding site clearing, demolition or grading activities during the breeding/nesting season (February 1 to September 1, as defined by CDFW) or conducting a site survey for nesting birds prior to commencing such activities during the nesting season, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Adherence to the MBTA regulations and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that if construction occurs during the breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to nesting birds, if any are found. Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to local wildlife movement. NO IMPACT 42

47 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element states that the City s community forest is an important part of the City s identity, and that the City is committed to preserving its existing trees, replacing trees that are damaged or dying, and expanding community forests in newer areas of Claremont (Claremont, 2009). Development of the proposed project may affect mature trees as defined by Section of the CMC. Goal 5-8 of the Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element is to preserve Claremont s unique community forests, and provide for sustainable increase and maintenance of this valuable resource. The policies under Goal 5-8 promote various measures to protect and enhance Claremont s community forests. In addition, the s Sustainable Community Plan contains guiding principles to help Claremont become a more sustainable community. One of the guiding principles is making protection, preservation and restoration of our natural environment a high priority for City decisions (Claremont, 2013). Claremont s Tree Policy Manual defines and illustrates the policies and procedures that shall be utilized by City staff in the management and care of all trees located on City property or within the City's public right-of-way. The Tree Policy Manual specifically documents the City's official guidelines for the planting, pruning, removal, preservation, and protection of all City-owned trees (referred to as Claremont's community forest). Per Chapter of the City Municipal Code, any tree located within public easement is recognized as a City-owned tree, and is therefore subject to the policies described in the Manual. Furthermore, specific trees, which by virtue of their species, size, age, appearance or historical significance are determined to be outstanding, shall be protected by declaration of Heritage Tree status, and shall so be protected by City ordinance. Chapter of the CMC defines "Heritage Trees" and the protection criteria established for them. No City-owned trees or Heritage Trees would be removed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would remove approximately 66 of the 478 trees on the project site, which includes both the private and City-owned trees. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to impact individual trees. The planting of 210 new trees as part of the proposed project, 15 of which are to become City-owned street trees, would mitigate for tree removal. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans identified by the Claremont General Plan or any other local, regional, State, or federal agency are applicable to the project area. Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to conflict with any such plans and would have no impact in this regard. NO IMPACT 43

48 This page left intentionally blank. 44

49 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC 21074? California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) As of July 1, 2015, California AB 52 was enacted and expands CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project that may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. According to the legislative intent for AB 52, tribes may have knowledge about land and cultural resources that should be included in the environmental analysis for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources. Section of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources are defined as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. All AB 52 consultation was carried out by the. Project Site History The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes as far back as 1928 and remained in agricultural use up to between 1953 and Beginning in the early 1980s the area was developed with the exception of the northeast corner of the project site, which is currently the vacant parcel proposed for the two mixed-use buildings. The buildings now occupied by KGI and the Technip Offices first appear in an aerial photograph in 1989, although the site appears to be under development with grading and road construction visible in 1981 aerial 45

50 photographs. Prior to 2000, Bausch & Lomb/Chiron Vision Corp were owners at 517 Watson Drive. Permits show KGI as the site owner after The land use along the southern boundary of the project site across Arrow Highway was historically agricultural and later developed as residential. The land use to the north, east, and west of the project site was historically agricultural, and more recently and currently commercial (Sanberg, 2016). a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Claremont contains many historic resources and has developed historic preservation efforts to maintain the community s heritage. The General Plan Land Use, Community Character, and Heritage Preservation Element notes that active preservation and heritage are part of the City s quality of life (Claremont, 2009). Claremont contains numerous buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places; however, none of these buildings are located on or near the project site (NRHP, 2016). The local inventory of historic places lists properties of historic significance near the project site. These structures include a small house converted to commercial use adjacent to the project site to the west of the proposed Technip Offices parking lot (671 Arrow Highway) and the Vortox site east of the project site, across Bucknell Avenue (121 S. Indian Hill Boulevard). The house located at 671 Arrow Highway would not be impacted by the proposed project because it is west of the Technip Offices where no development would occur as part of the proposed project. The Vortox site was purchased by KGI and is the site proposed for temporary parking during project construction. The Vortox site includes a Spanish Colonial Revival style front office building with warehouse area in the rear (Personal Communication, Carnahan). The proposed project would use the Vortox site for temporary parking and would not affect the historic structures located on the site. The areas within the project site proposed for construction of the two mixed-use buildings and one proposed parking lot are currently vacant and do not contain any historical resources. Construction of the proposed project would not alter any of the existing buildings on the project site or on the historic site adjacent to the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in ? The proposed project would have ground disturbing activities that could have the potential to disturb sub-surface archaeological resources, if any are present. The areas proposed for development are vacant and have not been subject to ground disturbance. Although archaeological resources are not known to be present onsite, there is the possibility of encountering archaeological resources and thus Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 46

51 Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered archeological resources to a less than significant level. CR-1 Previously Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to an increased depth, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archeologist and paleontologist who shall be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. If any archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during grading and construction carried out under the proposed project, work shall be halted and the Claremont Community Development Director (CDD) notified. A professional archaeological and/or paleontological monitor shall be retained by the contractor to evaluate the resources before work is resumed and monitor the site when work resumes. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archeological or paleontological monitor has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as significant cultural resources, pursuant to CEQA. If archeological or paleontological resources are recovered, they shall be offered to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or the University of California at Riverside, or any local museum or repository willing to and capable of accepting and housing the resource. If no museum or repository willing to accept the resource is found, the resource shall be considered the property of the City, and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion. A report of findings shall be prepared describing the artifacts and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the CDD for transmittal to the appropriate institutional repository. The recovered artifacts shall be transferred to a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded long-term preservation for future scientific study. LESS THAN SIGNIFICNT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No paleontological resources are known to be present onsite. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that as yet undiscovered resources could be encountered during site grading. Therefore, ground disturbing activities that could have the potential to disturb sub-surface paleontological resources, if any are present. There are no unique geological features onsite or adjacent to or surrounding the project site. Therefore, there is the possibility of encountering paleontological resources and Mitigation Measure CR-2 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 47

52 Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered paleontological resources to a less than significant level. CR-2 Previously Undiscovered Paleontological Resources. If any paleontological resources are uncovered during grading and construction carried out under the proposed project, work shall be halted and the Claremont City Engineer notified. A professional paleontological monitor shall be retained by the contractor to evaluate the resources before work resumes and monitor the site when work resumes. The monitor shall immediately evaluate the paleontological resources that have been discovered to determine if they are significant and, if they are determined to be so, the monitor shall develop a treatment plan. The monitor shall be empowered to redirect excavation equipment and remove paleontological resources as needed. To minimize construction delay, the monitor shall be equipped to speedily collect resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Human remains are not known to be present onsite and it is not anticipated that project grading would encounter any remains. Nevertheless, the proposed project would involve ground disturbing activities that could have the potential to disturb sub-surface human remains, if any were present. The areas proposed for development are vacant and have not been subject to ground disturbance. If any finds of human remains are made, required adherence to California Health and Safety Code Section et. seq. would avoid significant impacts to such resources. Section requires that if human remains are discovered the Coroner shall be contacted and an investigation undertaken. If the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then determine and notify a most likely descendant. NO IMPACT e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC 21074? As the CEQA lead agency, the City provided notification of the proposed project to tribes pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. With respect to the confidentiality of this government-to-government process (which is currently on-going), all records related to AB 52 are on file with the City. Should any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources be identified as a result of the AB 52 process, in addition to the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, appropriate mitigation will be developed in consultation with all applicable tribal representatives. However, given the heavily developed nature of the project site, it is unlikely that any tribal cultural resources are located within its boundaries. Therefore, impacts 48

53 would be less than significant with new mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 49

54 This page left intentionally blank. 50

55 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The September 2016 Geotechnical Investigation [for the] Proposed Keck Graduate Institute Mixed Use Student Housing Project, 517 Wharton Drive, Claremont California prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering, South, Inc. (CTE South) identified the potential geology and soils impacts associated with the proposed project. The CTE South study is included as Appendix B. The following analysis of the potential geological impacts is based on the geotechnical study. a i, ii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 51

56 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or; strong seismic ground shaking? There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones designated within the (California Geological Survey, 2016). Figure 6-1 of the Public Safety and Noise Element of the Claremont General Plan indicates several active and/or potentially active faults running through Claremont. The closest of these faults is the San Jose Fault, which runs from northeast to southwest through the southern portion of the City. The second closest is the Indian Hill Fault, which runs due east/west through Claremont about a ¼ mile north of Foothill Boulevard, before merging with the San Jose Fault just east of the City in the vicinity of Cable Airport in the City of Upland. Other nearby faults capable of producing major earthquakes in the City include the Sierra Madre Fault and the San Andreas Fault. The City has the potential to experience severe seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on nearby faults. However, since there is no evidence of known faults underlying the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the property and there is no evidence of special conditions that could cause strong ground shaking on the project site, the proposed project is adequately mitigated through standard seismic design requirements of the California Building Code. Therefore, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT aiii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine sands, silts, or low plasticity clays lose their physical strength during earthquake-induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of pointto-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with groundwater lever, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking (CTE South, 2016). Based on the presence of medium dense to dense sand and gravel with cobbles and absence of groundwater in the borings, there is low potential for liquefaction on the soils at the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT aiv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: landslides? The project site is relatively flat with minimal potential for landslides. During a field investigation on June 30, 2016 CTE South did not identify any features typically associated with landsliding. In addition, no evidence of landslides has occurred within the area of the site, based on reference review completed by CTE South. Therefore, there would be no impact. NO IMPACT 52

57 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction of the proposed project would require grading and other soil disturbing activities that could result in erosion of loss of topsoil. Erosion protection measures, as described in Section , Control of runoff required-construction activity, of the Claremont Municipal Code, would be required during all construction activities and/or as part of the applicant s legal requirements to obtain coverage under the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and State Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification. The NPDES permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying best management practices (BMPs) to control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the risk of erosion or loss of topsoil related to construction activities. These impacts would therefore be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The project site is underlain by undocumented artificial fill and young to old alluvial fan deposits. Refusal to drilling occurred in two borings completed by CTE South. These borings ranged from 2 to 14 feet deep. Another boring was able to be drilled to a depth of 51 feet. Granitic bedrock was encountered in the boring at 50 feet. As discussed under impact discussion a the proposed project would not be as risk of landslides or liquefaction. The Public Safety and Noise Element of the Claremont General Plan states that, [c]ollapsible and expansive soils lay under Claremont s hillside areas and most of the City. The project area is in an already-developed area, and the characteristics of the soils in these areas are therefore already generally known and have been subject to soils investigations that have supported development on the project site and in the vicinity. The proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and standard engineering practices, including compaction of soils to accommodate the weight of buildings and other improvements, before obtaining building permits and certificate of occupancy from the City. These practices would provide sufficient soil stability to accommodate the proposed uses. In addition, implementation of the recommendations contained in the project s Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that design and construction of the project would comply with all applicable codes and criteria (see Appendix B). Potential impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? The Public Safety and Noise Element of the Claremont General Plan states that Collapsible and expansive soils lay under Claremont s hillside areas and most of the City. The project area is in an already-developed area, and the characteristics of the soils in these areas are therefore already generally known and have been subject to soils investigations that have supported development on the project site and in the vicinity. Soil on the project site has low compressibility characteristics relative to the post-construction overburden. Based on the results 53

58 of expansion index testing, site soils are anticipated to have a very low expansion potential. The proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and standard engineering practices, including compaction of soils to accommodate the weight of buildings and other improvements, before obtaining building permits and certificate of occupancy from the City. In addition, implementation of the recommendations contained in the project s Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that design and construction of the project would comply with all applicable codes and criteria (see Appendix B).These practices would provide sufficient soil stability to accommodate the proposed uses. Potential impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The project site is fully connected to the s wastewater system, and does not and would not in the future require the installation or operation of septic systems. No septic systems are proposed; therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT 54

59 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere naturally regulates Earth s temperature. However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Carbon dioxide (CO 2) and methane (CH 4) are the GHGs that are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH 4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21 st century than were observed during the 20 th century. According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. (California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2010) While these are potential global and statewide effects, scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what impacts would occur locally. In response to an increase in man-made GHG concentrations over the past 150 years, California has implemented AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions (essentially a 25percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. Based upon the ARB s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for ( California produced about 459 metric tons of CO 2e in The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. The 2008 SCAQMD threshold considers emissions of over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) per year from industrial development projects to be 55

60 significant (SCAQMD, 2009). However, the SCAQMD s threshold applies only to stationary sources and is expressly intended to apply only when the SCAQMD is the CEQA lead agency. Although not formally adopted, the SCAQMD has a recommended tiered GHG significance threshold (SCAQMD, 2008). Under Tier 2, project impacts would be less than significant if a project is consistent with an approved local or regional plan. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant if the project is consistent applicable GHG reduction policies and plans. For locations lacking an approved local or regional plan, SCAQMD recommends Tier 3 thresholds, which are screening level quantitative thresholds. If a local or regional GHG reduction policy or plan is not applicable to a project, emissions would be less than significant if they are under the Tier 3 screening level threshold. SCAQMD has a recommended screening level quantitative threshold of 3,000 metric tons for all land use types CO 2e /year (SCAQMD, 2010). a, b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? This analysis is based on the methodologies recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change white paper (CAPCOA, 2008). The analysis focuses on CO 2, N 2O, and CH 4 since these are the GHG emissions that onsite development would generate in the largest quantities. Construction Emissions Project construction related GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod version Emissions of CO 2e generated by construction of the proposed project are estimated at 842 metric tons over the 598-day construction period. Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period of time in relation to the overall life of the proposed project. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period to determine the annual construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the project, as recommend by the SCAQMD (2010). When amortized over a 30-year period, CO 2e construction emissions would be approximately 28 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Operational Emissions Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation. Each of these sources is discussed below. Area Source Emissions Area emissions include consumer product use, the reapplication of architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. As shown in Table 7, area emissions are estimated at 5 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Energy Use Operation of the proposed project would consume both electricity and natural gas. Project operation would consume an estimated 1,124,714 kilowatt-hours [kwh] of electricity and 2,896,790 kbtu of natural gas per year (refer to Appendix A). The generation of electricity used by the project would occur at offsite power plants, much of which would be generated by the 56

61 combustion of fossil fuels that yields CO 2, and to a smaller extent N 2O and CH 4. As discussed above, annual electricity and natural gas emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, which has developed emission factors based on the mix of fossil-fueled generation plants, hydroelectric power generation, nuclear power generation, and alternative energy sources associated with the regional grid. Electricity consumption associated with the project would generate approximately 323 metric tons of CO 2e per year and natural gas consumption associated with the proposed project would generate 156 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Thus, overall energy use associated with the proposed project would generate an estimated 479 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Solid Waste The CalEEMod output for GHG emissions from solid waste relies on current waste disposal rates provide by CalRecycle. Solid waste associated with the project would generate an estimated 101 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Water Use Based on the amount of electricity generated in order to supply and convey water for the proposed project, the project would generate about 92 metric tons of CO 2e per year. Transportation Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the average daily trips for the proposed project (see Section XVI Transportation/Traffic) and based on the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated in CalEEMod. The proposed project would generate an estimated 5,262,659 annual VMT. Based on this estimate, the project would emit about 2,202 metric tons of CO 2e per year from mobile sources. Combined Construction, Stationary, and Mobile Source Emissions Table 6 combines the construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project. For the proposed project, the combined annual net emissions are estimated at 2,907 metric tons CO 2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the 3,000 metric tons of CO 2e per year threshold of significance. 57

62 Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (Metric Tons CO 2e) Proposed Project Project Construction 28.1 Project Operational Area Energy Solid Waste Water Project Mobile 2,202 Total Emissions From Proposed Project 2,907.9 Source: Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 4.2 in CalEEMod annual worksheets, see Appendix A for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.* GHG emissions shown for project construction are total emissions anticipated for construction of the project. Existing Plans and Policies While the has not adopted a Climate Action Plan, a Sustainable City Plan (SCP) has been drafted that outlines several goals that directly relate to GHG emissions. The SCP establishes a framework by which the City can reduce GHG emissions. The City has adopted community wide sustainability targets as a part of the SCP, including reducing electrical consumption, reducing water consumption, diverting solid waste from landfills, and all new construction should be designed, constructed and operated to LEED Silver Standards. Specifically, for new construction, the City s goal is to apply sustainable design standards to all new and renovated facilities community wide and promote sustainable design practices in homes and neighborhoods. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in adherence with the SCP. The proposed project is consistent with the Sustainable City Plan (SCP) as shown in Table 8. The proposed project s GHG emissions would be also be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 was adopted. In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed Senate Bill (SB 375) to connect regional transportation planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in the regional transportation plans to achieve per capita GHG reduction targets. For the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the most recent SCS was adopted April The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning to be consistent with the SCS, but provides consistency incentives for governments and developers. Not only will the project not interfere with SCAG s ability to implement the regional strategies outlines in the 2016 RTP/SCS, but it will likely help implement the strategies in that the project introduces medium to high density student housing in a mixed-use zone and within easy walking distance of transit. Additionally, the participated in the Energy Efficient Plan Project (EEPP) along with 27 other San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments members. The project started in July 2011 and was completed in April The objectives of the energy plan are to: 58

63 Summarize the City s existing and future energy use Project the City s existing future energy use (through 2020) Identify energy efficiency goals and targets Create an energy efficient strategy to meet the City s energy reduction goals Assist in meeting State and regional goals of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and longterm energy efficiency The City s Energy Action Plan (EAP) prepared under the EEPP is a programmatic document that serves as a strategic guide for the City in establishing policy to meet the efficiency and GHG reduction targets. In addition, the proposed project would be built to meet the applicable Building Energy Efficient Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to interfere with the City s EAP or any of the established goals of the plan. Table 8 Proposed Project Consistency with Claremont Sustainable City Plan Community Wide Sustainability Target Electrical Energy Consumption Indicator: Reduce energy consumed by City and community Target: Reduce energy consumption 20percent of 2003 levels by Water Consumption Indicator: Reduction in potable water consumed by City and community and Reduction in dependence on imported portable water by City and community Target: Reduce water consumption citywide 20percent by 2012 and 40percent by Solid Waste Indicator: Increase in diversion of waste now going to landfills Target: Divert 75percent of solid waste from landfills by New Building Construction Standards Goal: Sustainable land use Target: All new construction should be designed, constructed and operated to LEED Silver standards. Project Consistency Consistent Current code requires that energy efficiency is 20percent better than in 2003.The proposed project would install high efficiency lighting, Energy Star rated appliances, with the intent to exceed Title-24 requirements. The proposed project anticipates becoming LEED Gold accredited Consistent As part of the strategies for LEED Gold accreditation the project applicant would explore several water recycling systems and applications to apply to the proposed building and project landscaping. Additionally, the proposed project would use a high efficiency irrigation system and install high efficiency indoor fixtures and fittings. Consistent Due to recycling programs, the City is currently diverting approximately 66percent of all waste (Kristen Mikula, Personal Communication, 2014). The proposed project would contribute to waste diversion by using efficient framing methods to reduce overall waste production and would recycle construction related waste to help achieve the 75percent waste reduction goal. In addition, the City is introducing a new food waste recycling program that is estimated to be implemented at this site prior to 2020, further helping to achieve the City s diversion goals. Consistent The proposed project would be submitted for LEED accreditation and will pursue several sustainable strategies in anticipation of LEED Gold certification. Sustainability strategies would include: location/linkages, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy efficiency, and materials and resources reduction. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 59

64 This page left intentionally blank. 60

65 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 61

66 The November 2015 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APN#s and , KGI Campus Housing (ESA) report prepared by the Sanberg Group, Inc. (Sanberg) identified the potential hazards impacts associated with the proposed project. The following analysis of the potential hazardous impacts is based on the Phase I ESA, which is provided as Appendix C of this document (Sanberg, 2016). a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The uses envisioned as part of the proposed project involve an expansion of existing campus uses. Campus operations and maintenance currently utilize relatively small amounts of hazardous materials, such as chemicals associated with laboratory research, heating and cooling system fluids, fuel for maintenance equipment, solvents, cleaning products, pesticides/fertilizers, asbestos used in building materials, and other similar chemicals. The protocols established for current and future campus operational and maintenance activities adhere to applicable local, State, and federal laws regulating the use and transport of hazardous materials. Review of aerial photographs indicates that the project site land use appeared mainly as agricultural up to 1959 with the area being vacant land (orchard removed) by The use of pesticides was a common practice during this time period and would be expected to have left residues in the soil. These residues, if still present could constitute a potential recognized environmental condition (REC). However, the amount of time that has passed and exposure of this vacant land to the elements (rain, wind, sunlight) over the past approximately 50 plus years would be expected to reduce any residual concentrations remaining in the soil. Fugitive dust shall be controlled during grading operations (as required by air quality laws and the need to maintain optimal moisture for geotechnical purposes) by watering the ground surface to reduce the amount of dust created as surface soils are disturbed (see Section III, Air Quality). Such activity would reduce any exposure of construction workers to levels that would be less than significant. According to the Phase I ESA there is the potential for pesticide residues in the soil that may be hazardous during project construction. Incorporation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 would require soil samples prior to construction to ensure that people would not be exposed to hazardous materials. Should the confirmation of the presence of any pesticide residues in the soil be of concern prior to commencement of grading activities, surface and shallow (less than two feet in depth) soil samples may be collected and analyzed. If performed, this sampling would verify the presence or absence of any remaining pesticides, and quantify their concentration (if any) in the soil to determine if they represent a health risk during construction (Sanberg, 2016). Future operations under the proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable local, State, and federal laws regulating the use and transport of hazardous materials. The County of Los Angeles Department of Environmental Health, the Consolidated Fire Protection Districts of Los Angeles County (LACFD) and the State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulate the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials within Claremont. The LACFD is responsible for the enforcement of all local, State, and federal codes related to the safe occupancy of buildings. This includes the safeguarding of 62

67 life and property from the hazards of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances, materials, and devices as well as hazardous conditions due to the use or occupancy of buildings. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration protects workers and the public from safety hazards through its Occupational Safety and Health program and provides consultative assistance to employers. Adherence to all applicable rules and regulations of these bodies concerning hazardous materials would reduce the operational impacts of the proposed project on the environment from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or the release of hazardous materials under reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and the project s operational impacts related to upset or accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts from hazardous materials during project construction to a less than significant level. HAZ-1 Remediation. Prior to project grading, the applicant shall test for the presence of any pesticide residues by completing soil samples in compliance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control standards in areas historically used for agriculture. This sampling will verify the presence or absence of any remaining pesticides, and quantify their concentration (if any) in the soil to determine if they represent a health risk. The testing shall be compared to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) for residential sites. If the results of this test indicate concentrations that exceed their representative screening levels, the locations exceeding CHHSLs shall be remediated to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Department of Environmental Health. Details of remediation are specified below: The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. According to the level of contamination, remediation may include actions such as removal and proper disposal of contaminated soil or burial of contaminated soil below structures. The remediation program shall be approved by a regulatory oversite agency, such as the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of remediation, the entity responsible for the remediation shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal and treatment manifests. The report shall be submitted to the lead oversight agency for their approval of the remedial methodology and concurrence that no further action is necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 63

68 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed project involves development on the KGI campus. There are no other schools within a ¼ mile of the project site. As discussed under (a) and (b) above, all existing and proposed uses within the project site would be required to comply with all applicable regulations relating to potential hazardous material releases. Additionally, as discussed under (d) below, hazards within the project site or project vicinity would not have a significant impact on the public or the environment. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Identified Hazards Sanberg conducted a site visit on November 2, 2015 for site reconnaissance. One groundmounted electrical transformer located directly southwest of and immediately adjacent to the vacant lot on the KGI campus was identified. Inspection of the outside of the transformer did not reveal any evidence of the unit containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PBC). A locked steel cabinet was located on the east wall of a building southwest and adjacent to the vacant lot, and immediately adjacent to one parking area planned to be renovated. The label on the cabinet posted a Prop-65 warning stating the following, This area contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and/or to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. There was no visible evidence of spillage at the base of the cabinet. Other than the cabinet, no visual signs of any hazardous materials at were identified on the project site. No underground storage tanks (USTs) were reported at the project site and no visible signs of USTs were observed during the visit to the project site. The project does not contain any existing above ground structures or facilities and three existing parking areas are planned for renovation. The other existing buildings and facilities located within the project site are not part of the proposed project. The parking lot surface south of the vacant lot on the KGI campus does not contain any delaminating, chipping, peeling, or chalky coatings. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose the public to any asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint. Radon is a radioactive gas that occurs naturally in the environment and cannot be seen, smelled or tasted. The National Radon Database was developed by the U.S. EPA and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. A review of this survey states there is no potential for elevated radon levels in the project site vicinity. The project site has no solid waste RECs and there was no evidence of illegal dumping, with minimal trash or debris observed. Electricity and natural gas associated with the project site is supplied from underground utilities. During project inspection there were no signs of leaks or spills from the generator located in the parking lot south of the project site. The KGI campus drainage pattern is divided into two tributary areas discharging into a series of three existing 64

69 detention basins (refer to Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, for details regarding the site s detention basin system). Review of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps indicate that prior to development on the project site, a natural drainage/gulley was present. This feature currently contains native and non-native vegetation and is not considered a REC. A historic stormwater system was present, but has been modified to accommodate the business/industrial park development and northern tributary areas north of the railroad tracks. Records Review Available databases from federal and State regulatory agencies were reviewed to identify use, generation, storage, treatment, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals or release incidents of such materials which may have impacted the project site. Table 9 shows the records search results provided by the Environmental Databases Resources (EDR) report. Database Table 9 Summary of Regulatory Database Search Distance Searched (miles) Map Finding Summary RCRA Large Quantity Generators (LQG) RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQG) RCRA Non-Generator Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Spills, Leaks, Investigations & Cleanup Recovery Listing (SLIC) Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Historical Underground Storage Tanks (HIST UST) Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) ENVIROSTOR Cleanup Sites (ENVIROSTOR) Historic Cortese List (HIST CORTESE) Notify WIP Dry Cleaner Facilities (Cleaner) EDR Historical Auto Stations EDR Historical Cleaners Source: Sanberg, The project site was not listed in the search of any of the databases with the other 80 listings shown in Table 9. However, there were numerous historical auto stations and historical cleaner sites up-gradient of the project site. Information provided in the EDR report indicated that there were no violations reported. The nature of the chemicals and activities associated with types of businesses could pose risks of contamination to soil and groundwater; however, as none of these sites were found directly located on KGI property, and there is no documented evidence of releases or contamination to groundwater resulting from these past operations, they do not constitute a REC. A historical aerial photograph review was conducted by Sanberg for evidence of past development or land use on the project site and surrounding areas. With the exception of the undetermined features located in the northeast corner of the currently vacant lot on the KGI 65

70 campus identified in 1975 and 1977 aerial photographs, the review indicated no readily apparent environmental concerns. By 1981, these features were no longer visible in the aerial photograph but the surface area appeared to have been altered, possibly graded. The Archived Building Permit database was researched for prior building activities at the project site. The investigation provided reports for 517 Watson Drive, 535 Watson Drive, and 555 Arrow Highway. The results indicated no past activities that would be associated with a potential REC. Information obtained online from the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Well Finder tool indicated no oil or gas wells located within approximately a two-mile radius of the project site. Conclusion Potential for subsurface contamination at the project site at concentrations that may require statutory cleanup is low, with no historic or current RECs noted at the project site. The areas associated with construction of the proposed buildings and new parking have been used for agriculture and vacant land since or before The existing parking areas may have minor impacts in the shallow soil from vehicle liquids leaking over time; however, this is not anticipated due to the asphalt surfacing over the project site. Current and past activities in proximity of the project site do not appear to have impacted the proposed project areas in the northeast and southwestern parts of the project site where development is proposed. Therefore, potential hazard impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; or for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The airport closest to the City is Cable Airport, a privately-owned, public use airport located just across the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County line, approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site in the City of Upland. Figure 6-5 of City s Public Safety and Noise Element identifies Cable Airport Safety Zones (Claremont, 2009). According to this figure the project site is not within the Cable Airport Safety Zones as identified in the Cable Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 1981 and updated in September The second closest airport is Bracket Field Airport, a public airport located in the City of La Verne approximately 3.5 miles west of the project site. The closest heliport is located at San Antonio Regional Hospital in the City of Upland, east of the project site. There would be no impact because the proposed project does not include any buildings or other features that would interfere with aviation at either airport. NO IMPACT g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project applicant would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the Claremont Police Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department. In addition, the City of 66

71 Claremont reviews all development proposals for compliance with the City s adopted emergency response plan. Title 16, Chapter of the CMC establishes a number of development standards applicable to projects proposed within the City s Institutional zoning district. Specifically, Chapter of the CMC establishes the City s program to mitigate impacts to fire-fighting facilities and Chapter establishes the City s Architectural Review standards. Development of the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access to the proposed mixed-use buildings as discussed in the Project Description. The buildings would have a frontage on Wharton and Bucknell Avenue to provide appropriate emergency access for residents, and the proposed project would not significantly modify the existing vehicle circulation patterns on or around the KGI campus (see Section XVI, Transportation and Traffic). The state requires use of Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) plans for responding to any large scale disaster requiring multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response. The five functions of SEMS include: management, operations, planning and intelligence, logistics, and finance and administration. The County of Los Angeles All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP) was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in June 2005 (LACEO 2005). The AHMP includes a vulnerability analysis for many types of hazards, including earthquakes, floods, fires, and manmade hazards, including terrorism and civil unrest; goals and objectives for strategies for mitigating hazards; proposed strategies and actions for reducing vulnerability to identified hazards; and lists of facilities and equipment available for responding to disasters. The has also adopted a SEMS Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). The MHDP works in concert with the County of Los Angeles AHMP and ensures the most effective allocation of resources for the protection of people and property in time of emergency. The City recently submitted an All-Hazard Mitigation Plan to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Emergency Management Agency and is awaiting final approval. The City maintains an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at City Hall, which is the primary coordination point for disasters and major emergencies, and also maintains an alternative EOC at the Community Services Facility. Additionally, the Claremont Police Department is capable of providing a field Mobile Command Post in conjunction with the City s Emergency Response Team. These EOC facilities ensure that communications between and emergency management is maintained in the event of a disaster. Development of the proposed project would have no adverse impact on implementation of the adopted MHFP, and the proposed project is not considered a critical facility as defined by the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act for buildings that provide essential services after a disaster. Additionally, during the construction and operations phases, the proposed project would not interfere with any of the daily operations of the City s EOC or the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). All construction activities would be required to be performed per the City s and LACFD s standards and regulations. The proposed project would be required to provide the necessary on- and offsite access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operations phases. The proposed project would also be required to go through the City s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations as set forth in the CBC, LACFD, and City s Municipal Code, to ensure that they do not interfere with the provision of local emergency services (e.g., provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate numbers/locations of fire hydrants, etc.) Furthermore, the 67

72 proposed project would not require road closures or otherwise impact the functionality of a public safety route, nor would it introduce any roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted MHFP or any other emergency response plan and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site and its surroundings are located within an urbanized area, surrounded on all sides by developed properties. While the vacant lot within the project site contains brush and grass, these areas are easily accessible from surrounding streets for fire-fighting purposes and would be developed and/or landscaped as part of the proposed project. The proposed landscaping and existing landscaping in the project site would be maintained by ground crews for fire safety. There are no wildlands adjacent to the project site, and project development would not place structures closer to such fire-prone areas. Therefore, no impacts to people or structures as the result of wildland fires would occur. NO IMPACT 68

73 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 69

74 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a- f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The September 2016 Hydrology and Water Quality [for the] KGI Mixed Use/Student Housing Project, 535 Watson Drive, Claremont, CA prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF) identified the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The following analysis of the potential hydrology and water quality impacts is based on the hydrology study, which is provided as Appendix D of this document (KPFF, 2016). Regional Hydrology The project site is located within the San Gabriel River Watershed, which covers 640 square miles of eastern Los Angeles County. The proposed project site overflow is currently being discharged into the existing storm drain on Arrow Highway (southwest of the project site) and would eventually discharge into Thompson Creek. Thompson Creek flows south and becomes San Jose Creek, which then discharges into the San Gabriel River and ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean. Runoff at the project site would continue to discharge into the existing storm drain on Arrow Highway with the addition of a secondary BMP overflow onto Bucknell Avenue through the curb and gutter. A street capacity study of the north-side of Arrow Highway was performed, which included the project site and S. Indian Hill and Bucknell Avenue between Santa Fe Street and Arrow Highway (the full study is available in Appendix D of this EIR). The study 70

75 concluded that the total calculated 25-year peak flow is 55 cfs. Per the LA County Hydraulic Manual Street Flow calculations, the allowable flow for that portion of Arrow Highway is 74 cfs. In addition, the capacity of the west-side of Bucknell Avenue was taken from curb to curb. The total calculated 25-year flow is cfs and the allowable flow is 20 cfs. Therefore, the existing street drainage system provides the adequate capacity to receive additional run off. According to the 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, the San Jose Creek Reach, which the project site would discharge into, is identified as having coliform bacteria, ph, total dissolved solids, and toxicity as pollutant concerns. The San Gabriel River Reach has bacteria, lead, and toxicity listed on the 303(d) List. Groundwater and Infiltration The project site is located within the Pomona Basin, which is part of a large group of basins called the Six Basins. The Six Basins is the name for the six interconnected groundwater basins within the cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, Upland, and surrounding unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. The project site is not located near any groundwater recharge areas. However, there are a few wells, within an approximately half-mile radius surrounding the project site. Groundwater was not encountered during testing of the project site and historically the depth of groundwater is approximately 200 feet. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed project. Preliminary assessment of infiltration rates are made based on the nearest boring testing to proposed infiltration areas. According to the investigation, silty sand and gravel were found at depth of five to seven feet. These materials typically have fair infiltration rates when thoroughly wet. It is expected to have infiltration rates at 0.5 inch per hour or faster in the upper ten feet. Final infiltration assessments at the proposed detention and infiltration areas will be made prior to City permit issuance. Hydrology and Drainage The KGI campus drainage pattern is divided into two tributary areas discharging into a series of three existing detention basins. As shown in Figure 15, Area A flows northeast to southwest and discharges into detention basin number 2. Area B flows east to west and discharges into detention basin number 2 and 3. The site of the proposed mixed-use buildings are currently undeveloped and runoff sheet flows southwest onto the campus. The proposed parking area in front of the Technip Offices is currently a lawn area with drainage pattern heading southwest into Area A (Figure 15). The parking development at Technip north and west follows the KGI campus drainage patter which flows northeast to southwest and discharges into the existing detention basins. These existing detention basins and tributary areas south of Harrison Avenue are designed to accommodate a majority of the Village Walk development, north of the railroads on Wharton Drive, as well as portions of KGI campus runoff. The runoff from the Village Walk development is being directed through a 42-inch storm drain under the railroad and into the existing northern detention basin. Stormwater fills each basin and is then slowly released to W. Arrow Highway via a 24-inch storm drain outlet from the southwestern-most basin. 71

76 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 Source: KPFF Consulting Engineers KGI Existing Hydrology Feet / Figure 15

77 Hydrology Analysis A preliminary hydrology analysis for 85 th percentile and 25-year design storm events was performed in accordance with the Los Angeles Hydrology Manual (2006) and HydroCalc Calculator provided by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department. The analysis examined the existing KGI campus and proposed changes to the campus in relation to storm events, as shown in Table 10. Table th Percentile and 25-year Storm Peak Flow Velocities Condition Q 85thpercent (cfs) Q 25 (cfs) Existing Proposed Total Change Source: KPFF, Development of the two mixed-use buildings, the associated parking lot, and the parking lot to the west of the Technip Offices would alter KGI campus hydrology. Activities in Lot E, the York Place parking lot, and north of the Technip Offices would primarily include restriping and reconfiguration of parking spaces. As shown in Table 10, the peak flow would increase 0.92 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 85 th percentile and 4.62 cfs for a 25-year storm. Runoff from undisturbed areas that would not be affected by the proposed project would continue to flow throughout the campus through the existing drainage conveyance patterns and would eventually flow into the existing detention basins, as well as adjacent landscape areas. Stormwater runoff on the proposed mixed-use buildings and surface parking lot would be collected and conveyed with the use of underground storm water piping into a proposed infiltration system designed to capture an 85 th percentile storm event and infiltrate runoff into surrounding soil. The overflow would be released to existing County storm drain along Arrow Highway. The proposed project would include a new infiltration basin located at the southwest corner of the campus. It would be sized to treat runoff from the proposed surface parking lot, south of the existing parking lot, west of Technip Offices building. The infiltration basin would capture and infiltrate the required stormwater quality design value (SWQDV) and excess stormwater would discharge through a parkway drain onto Arrow Highway. For storm events exceeding the 85 th percentile storm event, overflow from the infiltration system would discharge through parkway drains, onto Bucknell Avenue, at a flowrate equal to the existing condition. Bucknell Avenue slopes at 3 percent which would allow runoff to flow south then west onto Arrow Highway and into the Los Angeles County storm drain, which discharges into Thompson Creek/San Jose Creek. As noted in the discussion of Regional Hydrology, the existing street drainage systems provides the adequate capacity for peak flow conditions. In addition, portions of Bucknell Avenue would be improved as part of the proposed project to serve as green streets in accordance with the City s Green Street Policy (Chapter 8.28 of the CMC). 73

78 In addition to runoff from the new adjacent parking area, west of the Technip Offices, the project would include a detention basin along the Arrow Highway frontage that would be sized to have the capacity to alleviate some existing runoff from the KGI campus. The detention basin would hold and gradually discharge stormwater through a curb drain onto Arrow Highway. In addition, the basin would have the capacity required to meet the MS4 permit (KPFF, 2016). In accordance with the Los Angeles County Municipal Stormwater Permit Order No. R , low impact development (LID) design principles shall mimic pre-development hydrology though infiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall harvest and use stormwater detention systems designed to detain stormwater for a period of time, followed by gradual discharge. The project applicant states the purpose of the proposed BMP is to hold and gradually discharge stormwater through a curb drain onto Arrow Highway. In order for the detention basin to meet the LID BMP standards of the Los Angeles MS4 Permit, the system must infiltrate the stormwater quality design volume (SWQDV) for drainage area D, 5944 cu/ft prior to releasing excess water to the MS4. To ensure the proposed detention system would comply with LID design principals, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require the applicant to conduct and submit an Infiltration Study to determine whether infiltration is adequate in this area. In addition, the applicant shall provide design drawings and include design capacities for the proposed detention system. Potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Hydrological Project Impacts To prevent additional runoff volume into the existing detention basins and to mitigate peak flows the project applicant has proposed an underground detention system and detention basin. The basin would be located adjacent to the Technip Offices on a portion of the existing large turf grass area along Arrow Highway, on the southwest corner of campus and the underground detention system would be located southwest of the proposed buildings (Figure 16). The proposed project would increase peak flows and flow volumes due to the increase in impervious surfaces, however the drainage pattern would not be altered. Project improvements to the existing parking lot include removing the three smaller parking islands and creating one new middle island, oriented north to south. The stormwater runoff for this parking lot would be collected into catch basins via concrete gutters and would discharge into existing detention basin number 3 to match the existing drainage patterns. The proposed parking lots south of the Technip Offices would include landscape islands incorporating infiltration capabilities. Drainage patterns would flow west to east and discharge into the proposed infiltration basin. Shrubbery would be act as a screen wall between the parking lot and Arrow Highway. The proposed project would increase peak flows and flow volumes due to the increase in impervious surfaces. To prevent additional runoff volume into the existing detention basins and to mitigate the peak flow, an underground infiltration system and new infiltration basin would be constructed. The proposed underground infiltration system would be corrugated perforated pipes located south of the proposed mixed-use buildings. This design would preserve space for development 74

79 c Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN Feet / Source: KPFF Consulting Engineers KGI Proposed Development and Hydrology Figure 16 75

80 and green space while reducing runoff and allow groundwater recharge. The infiltration basin would collect runoff from the new adjacent proposed parking lot and would allow water to percolate into the ground. The overall landscape design for the proposed project would maximize tree planting throughout the development areas to provide coverage and shade. On the vacant area where the new buildings would be constructed, proposed trees would be selected to blend functionality and aesthetic qualities. Native and drought-tolerant plant palettes around would promote conservation of water. At proposed surface parking lots, landscape islands would be an intermediary measure to increase perviousness and also be considered self-treating areas. The hardscape design of the area for the new mixed-use buildings would route runoff into pervious areas to minimize direct draining into storm drain system. Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Requirements Project Construction Project construction impacts to site runoff would occur during excavation, grading, and other construction activities such as stockpiling. Construction activities would be regulated by regional and local requirements. The is required to implement procedures with respect to the entry of non-stormwater discharges into its municipal storm water system. The regulates stormwater discharge in accordance with the NPDES permit through Chapter 8.28 of the CMC, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control. Erosion protection measures, as described in Section , Control of runoff required-construction activity, of the CMC, are required during all construction activities and/or as part of the applicant s legal requirements to obtain coverage under the applicable NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and State Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification. The NPDES permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying best management practices (BMPs) to control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Section D requires that [a]ll BMPs required as a condition of any NPDES permit for construction activity granted by U.S. EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, or a regional board or pursuant to this Code shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of the project, unless authorized by the Director. BMPs are defined in Chapter of the CMC as practices or physical devices or systems designed to prevent or reduce pollutant loading from stormwater or non-stormwater discharges to receiving waters, or designed to reduce the volume of stormwater or non-stormwater discharged to the receiving water. Per Section F of the CMC, the following BMPs are required of every owner or occupant of any property: 1. No person shall leave, deposit, discharge, dump, or otherwise expose any chemical, fuel, animal waste, garbage, batteries and/or septic waste in an area where actual or potential discharge to the city streets or the storm drain system may occur. Any spills, discharge, or residues shall be removed as soon as possible and disposed of properly. 2. Runoff from landscape irrigation, air conditioning condensate, water line flushing, foundation/footing drains, individual residential car washing, dechlorinated/ debrominated swimming pool/spa discharges and sidewalk washing shall be 76

81 conducted in a manner which minimizes or eliminates the possibility of pollutant discharges reaching the city storm drain system or receiving waters. 3. Runoff from washing paved areas, including but not limited to parking lots, on industrial or commercial property is prohibited unless specifically required by federal, state, or local health or safety codes and not in violation of any other provision of this code. Runoff from authorized washing of paved areas shall be minimized to the extent practicable. 4. Objects, such as motor vehicle parts, containing grease, oil, or other hazardous materials, and unsealed receptacles containing hazardous materials, shall not be stored in areas exposed to stormwater or otherwise susceptible to runoff. 5. Any machinery or equipment which is to be repaired or maintained in areas exposed to stormwater or otherwise susceptible to runoff shall be provided with containment areas to control leaks, spills, or discharges. 6. All motor vehicle parking lots with more than 25 parking spaces and located in areas exposed to stormwater or otherwise susceptible to runoff shall have debris removed by regular sweeping or other equally effective measures. Such debris shall be collected and properly disposed of. The proposed project is over one acre in size and would obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit and submit proof of coverage and a SWPPP to the city. Discharge of pollutants from construction sites is restricted by provisions set by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). All developers are required to ensure that pollutants are not discharged from a site unless the discharge is in compliance with the General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit issued to the by the SWRCB in compliance with the requirements of the NPDES program. Developers are also required to obtain State Water Board 401 Water Quality Certification, and comply with all provisions of Chapter 8.28, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, of the CMC. Project Operation Under the NPDES permit, developers are required to control pollutant discharge by utilizing BMPs such as the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and the Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to avoid discharging pollutants into waterways. BMPs are required during general operation of projects to avoid the discharge of polluted stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Per Section A of the CMC the proposed project requires the following: Except as otherwise conditionally authorized by the Permit or any other NPDES permit, waiver or waste discharge order issued by the U.S. EPA, the State Board, or a regional board, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver or order and other applicable laws and regulations, including the provisions of this chapter, and subject to any requirements specified by the Director, no person shall: 1. Discharge non-stormwater to the City s storm drain system or to receiving waters except in compliance with the requirements of this chapter; 77

82 2. Cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge; 3. Discharge, cause, allow or facilitate any discharge that may cause or threaten to cause a condition of pollution or nuisance as defined in Water Code Section 13050, that may cause, threaten to cause or contribute to an exceedance of any water quality standard in any Statewide Water Quality Control Plan, California Toxics Rule, or Basin Plan, or that may cause or contribute to the violation of any receiving water limitation. Section , of the CMC, Best Management Practices Required, requires that [a]ny person engaged in activities which will or may result in pollutants entering the City storm drain system shall undertake all control measures and BMPs as the Director may require to reduce such pollutants. Within Section of the CMC, Control of runoff required New development and redevelopment, Section A requires the City to review new development for its potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system or to receiving waters based on its intended land use. Section B specifies that: Once a development, redevelopment or new development project has been evaluated for its potential to discharge pollutants to the storm drain system or receiving waters, the city shall require appropriate BMPs to be implemented during construction and following project completion. The prescription of BMPs shall be in keeping with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements established by the regional board or its executive officer, pursuant to the NPDES permit. In compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Storm Water System (MS4), the City requires a Planning Development Document in the form of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The SUSMP is used as guidance to minimize potential pollutants during project operation. Conclusion The proposed project would include construction of an additional underground stormwater detention system and a surface level detention basin to capture flow from the increased impervious surfaces that would result from project development. In addition, the City s Green Street Policy would be applied to the stormwater design features along portions of Bucknell Avenue and Wharton Drive. Compliance with state, federal, and local regulations and requirements would further reduce hydrological impacts associated with the proposed project by requiring the use of applicable construction and operational BMPs. In addition, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would be required to ensure that the proposed detention system would be in compliance with the LID BMP standards. Potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this measure. Impacts to hydrology are site specific and not cumulative in nature. Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure the proposed detention system would comply with LID design standards. 78

83 HYD-1 Compliance with LID Design Standards. The following design plans and study shall be submitted to the City s Engineering Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits: a) The applicant shall submit design drawings that include design capacities for the proposed detention system. b) The applicant shall conduct and submit an Infiltration Study. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED g,h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As noted in the Public Safety and Noise Element of the Claremont General Plan, because of the naturally sloping topography of the Claremont area, no portion of the City lies within a federally designated 100-year or 500-year flood zone. Additionally, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No C1750F, the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone (KPFF, 2016). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, FIRM, or other flood hazard delineation map or place any structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with flooding. NO IMPACT i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? As shown on Figure 6-3 of the Claremont General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element the project site is located within a potential inundation zone in the event of failure of the San Antonio Dam, which is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. The Claremont General Plan indicates a flood water arrival time of within 15 minutes and an average over bank depth of seven feet. The General Plan also indicates that this hazard at sites south of the 210 Freeway, which is located about two miles north of the project site, may have been reduced due to its construction because the 210 Freeway was constructed below adjacent grades and would therefore act as a large cut-off trench. Moreover, given seismic safety requirements, the minimal amount of water commonly behind the dam, and the capacity of channels below the dam, dam failure is considered unlikely. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is approximately 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Due to its distance from the ocean and other large bodies of water, elevation, and topography, the project site 79

84 would not be subject to such hazards associated with seiche or tsunami. The project site and surrounding area is generally flat and would not be at risk from mudflow. Therefore, proposed structures and people would not be at risk from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Consequently, there would be no impact associated with risks from a tsunami wave, seiche, or mudflow. NO IMPACT 80

85 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? Development of the two buildings would occur on a vacant lot within the KGI campus and would not affect any through streets or interrupt a neighborhood community or connectivity, or otherwise physically divide an established community. The three parking expansions would be developed on vacant lots and would not divide an established community. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The following provides a consistency analysis for the land use plans, policies and regulations that apply to the proposed project. General Plan Consistency The adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan in October 2006, with the most recent updates adopted in October The document serves as the City s vision for the 21 st century and thus guides decision makers with respect to development, resource management, public safety, community services, and the City s desired quality of life. The proposed project is consistent with the Claremont General Plan, specifically Goal 2-1 to make Claremont a model for the application of sustainable development practices. The proposed project is anticipated to be LEED Gold certified through implementation of sustainable strategies for linkages, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy, and materials and resources. 81

86 The project site is designated as Institutional and Business Park by the City General Plan. The Institutional land use designation provides for the development and enhancement of campuses for private schools and colleges, including the Claremont Colleges and affiliated institutions. The Business Park land use designation provides for locations for well-designed business and employment centers developed with uses consisting of professional offices, research and development businesses, laboratories, and supportive commercial uses. The proposed project would therefore be consistent with the land use designations in the General Plan. Chapters two, five, and eight of the Claremont General Plan include land use goals and policies and were reviewed to determine project consistency. Land Use, Character, and Preservation Element The following are the applicable goals and policies from the Land Use, Character, and Preservation Element: Goal 2-1: Make Claremont a model for the application of sustainable development practices. Policy Encourage sustainable development that incorporates green building best practices and involves the reuse of previously developed property and/or vacant sites within a built up area. Policy Encourage development that incorporates green building practices to conserve natural resources as part of sustainable development practices. The proposed project is anticipated to be LEED Gold accredited and would include sustainable development practices such as high efficiency lighting, Energy Star rated appliances, and water recycling systems. In addition, proposed project would be developed on vacant land within the urbanized KGI campus. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies in the Land Use, Character, and Preservation Element. Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element The following are the applicable goals and policies from the Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element: Goal 5-1: Maintain unique and diverse open space resources throughout Claremont for purposes of resource and habitat protection. Policy Encourage new development to preserve where possible on site natural elements that contribute to the community s aesthetic character. Goal 5-4: Protect groundwater resources. Policy Encourage use of drainage improvements designed with native vegetation where possible to retain or detain stormwater runoff minimizing volume and pollutant concentrations. Goal 5-5: Maintain and enhance groundwater resources. 82

87 Policy Require all new development to connect to public sewers Explore alternatives for connecting the existing development which is not currently connected to the sanitary sewer system. Goal 5-6: Preserve open space as a public safety enhancement. Policy Require geotechnical evaluation and recommendations prior to new development Recognize that the suitability of soil and rock formations for development should be a prime basis for the type and intensity of development permitted. Goal 5-7: Maximize the distribution of open space in urban areas. Policy Require that private open spaces be integrated with new development by providing spaces in between such as green spaces or landscaped plazas between buildings to provide relief from density and confinement of the built environment. Goal 5-8: Preserve Claremont s unique community forests, and provide for sustainable increase and maintenance of this valuable resource. Policy Safeguard and enhance Claremont s community forest by protecting existing stands of trees and other plant material of substantial value. Policy Continue to plant new trees in particular native tree species where appropriate and work to preserve mature native trees. Goal 5-9: Provide a variety of park facilities that meet the diverse needs and interests of the community. Policy Achieve and maintain a park ratio of 4.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Goal 5-11: Develop and maintain a pathway system within the urban areas of the City. Policy Require new development to provide pedestrian walkways paths and pedestrian connections that provide access between residential neighborhoods parks schools and other activity nodes as appropriate. Goal 5-12: Conserve and properly manage natural resources for future generations. Policy Consider the environmental impacts of proposed development of natural areas recognizing the loss of natural resources is irreversible. The environmental analysis shall carefully weigh the costs and benefits of such development. Policy Encourage the reuse of already developed properties before developing natural areas. Goal 5-13: Maximize energy conservation throughout all segments of the community to reduce air pollutant emissions and to reduce consumption of natural resources and fossil fuels. 83

88 Policy Promote the use of energy saving designs and devices in all new construction and reconstruction. Policy Promote energy efficient design features including appropriate site orientation use of light color roofing and building materials and use of evergreen trees and wind break trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling. Goal 5-14: Incorporate green building and other sustainable building practices into development projects. Policy Facilitate the use of green building standards and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED in both private and public projects. Policy Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate. Policy Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental quality economic vitality and social benefit through the design construction and operation of the built environment. Goal 5-15: Achieve the highest level of water conservation possible. Policy Support water conservation through requirements for landscaping with drought tolerant plants and efficient irrigation. Goal 5-16: Strive to achieve waste recycling levels that meet or exceed state mandates. Policy Utilize source reduction recycling and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in Claremont that is disposed of in landfills. Policy Facilitate the maximum diversion from landfills of construction and demolition materials created in Claremont through recycling and reuse. Policy Achieve maximum waste recycling in all sectors of the community including residential commercial industrial institutional and the construction industry. Goal 5-18: Reduce the amount of air pollution emissions from mobile and stationary sources and enhance the airshed. Policy Promote the use of fuel efficient heating and cooling equipment and other appliances such as water heaters swimming pool heaters cooking equipment refrigerators furnaces and boiler units. Policy Continue to require the planting of street trees along City streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for all development projects to help improve airshed and minimize urban heat island effects. 84

89 Policy Implement principles of green building (see policies under Goal 5-14). Goal 5-19: Reduce the amount of fugitive dust released into the atmosphere. Policy Support programs and policies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding restrictions on grading operations at construction projects. The proposed project is anticipated to be LEED Gold accredited and would include sustainable development practices such as high efficiency lighting, Energy Star rated appliances, and water recycling systems to conserve water and energy. In addition, the proposed project would plant 210 trees as part of the project landscape plan and main the City s park ratio. Finally, the proposed project would include open areas and new pathways maximizing open space on the KGI campus. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies in the Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element. Housing Element The following are the applicable goals and policies from the Housing Element: Goal 8-3: Provide opportunities throughout the City for adequate and affordable housing in a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community. Policy Provide for sites that can facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing consistent with the City s identified local needs and its regional housing responsibilities. Policy Encourage the Claremont Colleges to continue to provide on-campus housing for nearly all of the students. Policy Encourage employers with a large number of employees, including the Claremont Colleges, to provide some housing assistance to their employees. Policy Require the Claremont Colleges in long-range planning efforts to expand on-campus housing for students. Support the Claremont Colleges in its efforts to encourage staff and faculty to live locally. Goal 8-4: Accommodate and encourage housing that meets the unique living requirements of special needs groups in the City. Policy Encourage development of new housing in proximity to public services, transportation routes, and other community facilities. The proposed project would provide 292 students housing units. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies to provide housing opportunities for on-campus housing for the Claremont Colleges. In addition, the project site is located within walking distance of the Claremont Village and public transit routes. 85

90 Claremont Municipal Code (CMC) The project site is zoned Institutional Education (IE) and Business/Industrial Park (B/IP) and the general plan land use designation for the project site is Institutional and Business Park. The CMC (Section ) describes the intent of the IE district and follows: The intent of the Institutional Districts is to provide for the development and growth of educational and residential institutions wherein all directly related and ancillary uses may be located The IE Educational District provides for the development and enhancement of campuses for schools and colleges, affiliated institutions, places of assembly, and associated housing for students, staff, and faculty. The CMC (Section ) describes the intent of the B/IP district as follows: The Business/Industrial Park (B/IP) District is intended to provide for a variety of professional and office uses, restricted industrial uses primarily engaged in research and testing, or in light manufacturing and the treatment of materials, that will maintain and enhance employment opportunities in the community. The B/IP District is also intended for commercial uses that do not serve community and neighborhood needs and/or commercial uses that are not compatible with other commercial uses allowed in commercial zoning districts elsewhere in the City. The Business Park land use designation is defined by the General Plan Land Use, Community, and Heritage Preservation Element as... a location for well-designed business and employment centers developed with uses consisting of professional offices, research and development business, laboratories, and other commercial uses. The proposed parking areas near the Technip offices and parking near York Place would be developed within the B/IP zone and Business Park land use, and are an allowed use under these designations because they would provide increased parking for the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed parking lots near the Technip offices and York Place building would not conflict with existing land use and zoning designations. The Institutional General Plan designation is defined by the General Plan Land Use, Community Character, and Heritage Preservation Element as a place for the... development and enhancement of campuses for private schools and colleges, including the Claremont Colleges and affiliated institutions. Development of the proposed buildings and associated parking lot areas would therefore be consistent with the existing land use and General Plan designations. As described in the Project Description, the proposed project would require the following entitlements from the s Architectural Commission, which would be the reviewing body that approves or denies these discretionary permits: Design review for all new construction and site changes, including setback reduction along the streets for the new buildings, and Design review for new landscaping and other site improvements associated with the project. 86

91 The following additional items would be needed: A Special Use and Development Permit (SUDP) for short term parking on the Vortox property during construction and during CGU years (Staff level review). Building permits (Staff) A lot line adjustment for relocation for existing property lines (City Council) Reduction request for parkland fees (City Council) Adoption of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project site Sustainable City Plan Consistency The City s Sustainable City Plan (Claremont, 2013) establishes a framework for the Claremont Community to achieve its vision of becoming a sustainable city. For Claremont, this vision involves balancing the community s social needs, environmental health, and economic prosperity while not depleting or degrading its natural resources, creating social inequities, or limiting the prospects for continued economic prosperity. The plan sets forth government and community-based sustainability targets along with overarching guiding principles, and quantitative and qualitative sustainability goal areas, including: 1) Resource Conservation; 2) Environment and Public Health; 3) Transportation; 4) Sustainable Built Environment; 5) Open Space and Land Use; 6) Housing and Economic Sustainability; and 7) Public Outreach and Implementation. As discussed in Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable policies contained in the Sustainable City Plan. The Village Expansion The Village Expansion Specific Plan Area is located north of the project site across the railroad tracks. The Village Expansion site has become a new downtown area adjacent to historic Claremont Village, which consists of several developments including residential, office, retail, entertainment, and restaurant uses. The Village Expansion Specific Plan describes several objectives for the planning area including expanding the number and types of businesses; keeping the City s commercial areas competitive; adding new housing to the downtown area; promoting transit-oriented development opportunities; and reusing the industrial area adjacent to the Village area. The proposed project would not conflict with any of the objectives of the Village Expansion Specific Plan. Park Fee Exemption Section of the CMC establishes a parkland fee for residential developments, where there should be four aces of park and recreation land for every 1,000 persons within the City. The City assesses, by ordinance, a parkland fee of $4,400 per unit. While the parkland fee is assessed for residential developments, the City s intent was to provide relief from the parkland fee for on-campus student housing projects. Section categorically exempts on-campus undergraduate student housing from being assessed a parkland fee and on-campus graduate housing is eligible for a waiver of fees determined by City Council. Additionally, prior determination of a park fee assessment for a graduate student housing project, the City Council passed Resolution No where the graduate student housing project at Claremont Graduate University ( CGU ) was granted a 50 percent reduction of the park fee where the accompanying staff report stated that The City s 87

92 public recreation facilities are most heavily used by youths and seniors. Both these age groups will be significantly underrepresented in the resident population of the proposed CGU apartments. A developer of any development project subject to an impact fee described in this title may submit a request to the Director of Community Development for an adjustment to the fee when the applicant can demonstrate that there are special characteristics of the development project that will result in less impact than that assumed in the fee calculations. As the proposed projects average persons per household is 51.7 percent of the average household in the, the potential impact of the proposed project s household is approximately half that of the average Claremont household. Additionally, this potential impact is further mitigated as the primary users of Claremont s parks are youths and seniors, precisely the demographic unlikely to be living in student housing. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a waiver for of all or part of the CMC park fee requirement under CMC (Fee Adjustment) where a developer of any development project subject to an impact fee may submit a request to the Director of Community Development for an adjustment to the fee when the applicant can demonstrate that there are special characteristics of the development project that will result in less impact than that assumed in the fee calculations. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that the adjustment is necessary. As such, the applicant has provided a request that the parkland fee for the proposed project is adjusted and reduced by 50 percent as a result of the average persons per household associated with the proposed project. Upon approval of the requested entitlements and the full or partial payment of the park fee, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable land use plans policies and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. However, upon approval of a full adjustment (waiver) of the park fee, the project would conflict with Section of the CMC. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans identified by the Claremont General Plan or any other local, regional, State, or federal agency are applicable to the project area. The proposed project therefore has no potential to conflict with any such plans, and would have no impact in this regard. NO IMPACT 88

93 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a,b) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Figure 5-3 of the General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Air Quality Element classifies areas within the City as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) (Claremont 2009). This designation indicates that either aggregate resources are present or there is a high likelihood that such resources exist. The project site is located within an area classified by the General Plan as MRZ-2. However, the underlying zoning of the project site and adjacent institutional, commercial, business, and residential land uses are not compatible with mineral extraction. These areas are currently developed and not used or planned for use as mineral extraction areas, a condition that would not change with adoption or implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, most of the rocks discovered during the grading operations will be sent to a mineral resource recovery processing facility instead of a landfill. Also, some rocks extracted during grading operations will be saved and reused onsite within the new landscaping and bio areas. For these reasons, the project would have a less than significant impact to mineral resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 89

94 This page left intentionally blank. 90

95 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (db) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dba). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 db level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dba, and a sound that is 10 dba less than the ambient sound level has no 91

96 effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dba greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dba change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 db changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of dba, while arterial streets are in the dba range. Normal conversational levels are in the dba range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dba can interrupt conversations. Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dba per doubling of distance from point sources (such as industrial machinery). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dba per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dba per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dba, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dba. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dba with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings is generally 30 dba or more (FTA, May 2006). In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 db greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dba change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dba changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dba, while those along arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ dba range. Normal conversational levels are in the dba range, and ambient noise levels greater than that can interrupt conversations. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dba penalty for noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dba penalty for noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dba. Vibration is a unique form of noise because the energy is carried through solid objects such as buildings, structures, and the ground, rather than through the air. As a result, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic 92

97 energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB (Federal Transit Administration [FTA], 2006). A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration include construction equipment, steel wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. a, c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? The Noise Ordinance (CMC, Chapter ) includes exterior and interior noise standards, as well as standards for groundborne vibration. The Noise Ordinance land use/noise guidelines and standards are shown in Table 12. The noise zones used in this table are: Noise Zone I: All single, double and multiple family residential uses. Noise Zone II: All commercial uses. Noise Zone III: All manufacturing or industrial uses. Table 12 Claremont Land Use/Noise Guidelines and Standards Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Maximum Allowable Type of Land Use Time Interval Exterior Noise Level I Single, double or multiple family residential (RS, HC, RR, AV, H or RM) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 dba 60 dba II Commercial (CP, CN, CL, CH, CV & CF) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60 dba 65 dba III Industrial (B/IP) Anytime 70 dba Interior Noise Standards Noise Zone Type of Land Use Time Interval All Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Allowable Interior Noise Level 37 dba 47 dba Source: Municipal Code,

98 The exterior and interior noise standards shown in Table 12 serve as the Base Noise Levels under the Noise Ordinance of the CMC. Section D.2 of the CMC states that it shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the actual ambient noise level or the Base Noise Level, whichever is higher: For a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or Plus 5 dba for a cumulative period of more than 10 minutes in any one hour; or Plus 14 dba for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any one hour; or Plus 15 dba at any time. The Public Safety and Noise Element of the General Plan contains guidelines for planning new land uses and goals for indoor and outdoor noise environments, shown in Table 12. Claremont utilizes the L dn or CNEL for noise level/land use guidelines. For the most sensitive uses in Claremont, such as low and medium density residential uses and schools, 65 dba L dn is the maximum normally acceptable exterior level, as shown in Table 13. Table 13 Claremont Land Use/Noise Guidelines (General Plan) Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (L dn or CNEL, dba) Type of Use Zoning Designations Interior Exterior 3 Residential Commercial and Office Hillside Rural Very Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70 1 High Professional Commercial Neighborhood Limited Major Highway Freeway - 70 Professional Office Business Park Business Park Public/Institutional Open Space Schools All Others Active Open Space - 70 Passive Open Space - 70/65 2 Source: General Plan-Public Safety and Noise Element, Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 db CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. 2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. 3 Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 db CNEL. 94

99 The City s Public Safety and Noise Element lists noise levels in the. Sources of noise levels in excess of 65 dba CNEL in the City include traffic on Interstate 10 and State Route 210 freeways, Foothill Boulevard, and small portions of Towne Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue, and Arrow Highway. Railroad operations, and traffic along Mountain Avenue, Indian Hill Boulevard, and part of Mills Avenue, produce noise levels between 60 and 65 dba CNEL. Other transportation-related noise sources mentioned in the General Plan include aircraft noise from Cable Airport, Ontario International Airport, Brackett Field, and helicopters. Nontransportation noise sources described in the General Plan include commercial and industrial activities such as loading dock operations, frequent truck uses, mechanical equipment, outdoor paging systems, and noise generated from property maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers or home repair activities. Current Ambient Noise Levels In order to characterize ambient noise levels on the project site, three peak hour weekday evening 20-minute noise measurements (Leq[20] dba) were taken on and near the project site on May 11, 2016 (Figure 17). These noise measurements provide existing sound levels, which are primarily due to roadway noise. The noise monitoring results are summarized in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, noise levels in the area ranged from 56 dba to 72 dba. Table 14 Measured Noise Levels # Measurement Location Primary Noise Source Sample Time Leq[20] (dba) End of De Paul Road Residential Development South of Project Site Bucknell Avenue at W. Arrow Highway W. Arrow Highway at S. Indian Hill Boulevard Traffic on W. Arrow Highway Traffic on Bucknell Avenue and W. Arrow Highway Traffic on W. Arrow Highway and S. Indian Hill Boulevard 4:11 p.m. 4:31 p.m. 4:48 p.m. 5:08 p.m. 5:40 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurements on May 11, The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). For this measurement the Leq was over a 20-minute period (Leq[20]). 2 Includes MetroLink Noise, train passed during noise measurement. Operational Noise The majority of noise associated with operation of the proposed project would result from new vehicle-traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use project. For traffic-related noise, impacts would be significant if project-generated traffic results in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. This analysis uses recommendations contained in the FTA s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment to determine whether or not increases in roadway noise would be significant (FTA, 2006). Table 15 shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels caused either by the project alone or by cumulative development. As shown in Table 15, the allowable noise exposure increase changes with

100 York Pl Iolab Dr Cornell Ave N Bucknell Ave Oberlin Ave Indian Hill Blvd Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration W 1St St 3 Santa Fe St Wharton Dr Watson Dr W Arrow Hwy 2 4 Geneva Ave 1 R d Notre Dame Virginia Rd Project Location Guilford Ave Noise Measurement Location Imagery provided by Google and its licensors ± Feet Imagery provided by Google and its licensors Cinderella Dr Noise Measurement Locations Figure 17 96

101 increasing noise exposure, such that lower ambient noise levels have a higher allowable noise exposure increase. Table 15 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure Ldn or Leq in dba Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increase Source: FTA, The proposed project would result in new vehicle trips to and from the project site, which would incrementally increase traffic noise on study area roadways and at neighborhing uses. Noise levels during the peak period were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model (TNM) using data from the project traffic study (see Appendix E for the TNM Results). Table 16 shows a comparision of existing traffic noise levels with and without the proposed project and Table 17 show a comparision of noise level changes due to cummulative traffic in 2018 with and without the proposed project. 97

102 Location Table 16 Comparison of Pre-Project and Post-Project Traffic Noise On Local Roadways Projected Noise Level (dba Leq) Existing (1) Existing + Project (2) Change In Noise Level (dba Leq) Due to Project Traffic (2-1) FTA Threshold of Significance Significant? End of De Paul Road Residential Development South of Project Site Bucknell Avenue at W. Arrow Highway W. Arrow Highway at S. Indian Hill Boulevard No No No Location Table 17 Comparison of Cumulative Traffic Noise On Local Roadways Projected Noise Level (dba Leq) Cumulative Baseline (1) Cumulative + Project (2) Change In Noise Level (dba Leq) Due to Project Traffic (2-1) FTA Threshold of Significance Significant? End of De Paul Road Residential Development South of Project Site Bucknell Avenue at W. Arrow Highway W. Arrow Highway at S. Indian Hill Boulevard No No No The proposed project would generate an estimated 1,942 daily trips, with 149 trips in the morning peak hour and 181 trips in the evening peak hour (Kimley-Horn, 2016). These new trips would increase traffic and traffic-related noise on area roadways. As shown in Table 16, there would be minimal change in noise levels as a result of the proposed project. However, none of the noise levels would increase above the 1 or 5 dba FTA allowable noise exposure increase. The traffic-related noise at Bucknell Avenue and W. Arrow Highway, and W. Arrow Highway and Indian Hill Boulevard replicate noise from Arrow Highway, where the greatest noise impact from proposed project traffic is anticipated. Traffic-related noise at these locations 98

103 would remain below the allowable 1 dba traffic noise increase and would not result in a significant increase in traffic related noise. As shown in Table 17, the anticipated cumulative noise levels associated with the proposed project would not exceed the 1 or 5 dba FTA noise threshold. Anticipated traffic noise increase would remain below 0.5 dba at all three measurement locations and would not result in a significant increase in traffic related noise. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Rail Lines The project site is approximately 70 feet south of the two Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) train tracks that serve primarily for the Metrolink. Although the effect of ambient noise on a proposed project is not an impact under CEQA, the potential noise levels at the proposed residences are provided for public disclosure. The current noise level exposure from trains at the project site is 58 dba (Metro Extension, 2013). The Foothill Gold Line Extension is planned for construction and would expand the rail lines to the north of the existing Metrolink tracks (Metro Extension, 2013). Project housing would develop exterior decks, some of which would be facing the railroad tracks. The noise level exposure from the Metrolink that operates on the tracks north of the project site are below the 65 dba exterior noise threshold in Claremont residential zones. Therefore, impacts from the adjacent rail (existing and future) would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Vibration includes groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the adverse effects associated with the shaking of a building are absent. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB, and the vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB (FTA, 2006). A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Section J, Vibration, of the CMC states the following: Notwithstanding other sections of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to create, maintain or cause any ground vibration which is perceptible without instruments at any point on any affected property adjoining the property on which the vibration source is located. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the perception threshold shall be presumed to be more than 0.05 inches per second RMS vertical velocity. Construction Project construction would create groundborne vibration and noise, and can result in varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. Table 18 shows typical groundborne vibration levels associated with high vibration equipment that may be used for the proposed project. 99

104 Table 18 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate VdB At 25 Feet A 95 Feet Large Bulldozer Loaded Trucks Jackhammer Small Bulldozer Source: FTA, 2006 As shown in Table 18, operation of a large bulldozer would generate up to approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at a distance of 25 feet from the source. The closest residences are located approximately 95 feet south of the project site. These residences could be exposed to groundborne vibration of 70 VdB when large bulldozers are used during project construction based on 6 VdB reduction per doubling distance. This is lower than the 75 VdB level at which groundborne vibration becomes distinctly perceptible for many people. The Ordinance has a perception threshold presumed to be more than 0.05 in/sec RMS vertical velocity (PPV), as described above. Vibration levels from large bulldozers, which would produce the most vibration during project construction, would remain below the City perception threshold, producing 0.02 PPV at the nearest sensitive receptors 95 feet south of the project site. This PPV was calculated using the equation for peak particle velocity from the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment (USDOT, 1995). In addition, construction activities are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday (excluding Federal holidays), which would prevent construction vibration impacts from disturbing sleep for most nearby residents. Therefore, project construction would not involve any vibration sources that would cause exposure of persons to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Operation The project site is approximately 70 feet south of the two Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) train tracks. Although the effect of ambient vibration on a proposed project is not an impact under CEQA, the potential vibration impacts at the proposed residences are provided for public disclosure. The proposed project would not expose people to excessive groundborne vibration from trains because trains are not continuously operating on the tracks causing extensive vibration. Vibration from light-rail transit operations are not considered irritating by humans until the vibration exceeds 70 to 75 VdB (FTA, 2006). Vibration levels exceeding 70 VdB are experienced within 50 feet of light-rail transit and the proposed project is 70 feet from the rail line (Metro Extension, 2013). Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. The noise and vibration control plan for the Metro Gold Line Extension project would contain measures to minimize vibration impacts during construction, which include minimizing the use 100

105 of tracked vehicles, avoiding vibratory compaction, and monitoring vibration near residences to ensure thresholds are not exceeded (Metro Extension, 2013). Vibration from light-rail transit operations are not considered annoying by humans until the vibration exceeds 70 to 75 VdB (FTA, 2006). Therefore, a significant impact from light-rail operations would occur if the predicted vibration level would exceed the current level by 3 VdB and exceed 72 VdB exceeding to FTA thresholds for light-rail operations (Metro Extension, 2013). However, the proposed project would not be within 50 feet of the proposed tracks, which is the distance that vibration impacts would be significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not experience excessive vibration. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Project construction would result in temporary noise level increases. As shown in Table 19, noise levels associated with heavy equipment typically range from about 71 to 94 dba at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Table 19 lists typical construction equipment noise levels at a distance of 95 feet, corresponding to the location of the nearest sensitive receptors. Type of Equipment Table 19 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured (dba at 50 Feet) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dba at 50 Feet) Maximum Sound Levels (dba) At 95 Feet Scrapers Cranes Portable Generators Rollers Dozers Tractors Hydraulic Backhoe Graders Air Compressors Trucks Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, dba = A-weighted decibels ft-lb/blow = foot-pounds per blow 101

106 Based on the information presented in Table 19 temporary construction noise could affect sensitive noise receptors 95 feet south of the project site. Section F.4 of the CMC generally exempts noise associated with construction from the Noise Ordinance between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. if noise levels do not exceed 65 dba for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, 70 dba for a cumulative period of more than 10 minutes in any one hour, 79 dba for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any one hour, or 80 dba at any time. Construction would be temporary lasting approximately 598 days within anticipated completion in the summer of Table 20 shows noise levels generated at 95 feet from the project site during the various phases of construction. Table 20 Construction Noise Levels by Phase Construction Phase Required Equipment Anticipated Noise (95 feet) (dba CNEL) Site Preparation Dumper/Tender 74 Demolition and Rough Grading Building Construction Crawler Tractor, Dumper/Tender, Rubber Tired Dozer, Scraper, Skit Steer Loader, Tractor/Backhoe Air Compressor, Concrete Mixer, Crane, Crawler Tractor, Dumper/Tender, Forklift, Generator, Tractor/Backhoe, Welder Paving Concrete Mixer, Roller, Tractor/Backhoe 76 Architectural Coating Air Compressor 74 Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dba) at Nearest Receptor Maximum Exceedance of Existing CNEL 20.9 See Appendix E for heavy equipment noise impact estimation data sheets and assumptions. 1 Leq from Noise Measurement #1 in Table 14, representative of noise at nearest sensitive receptor location. Additional factors to consider are that the estimated construction noise levels do not take into account the fact that equipment is dispersed in various areas of the site in both time and space. Due to site and equipment limitations, only a limited amount of equipment can operate near a given location at a particular time. In addition, construction equipment estimates used for the analysis for demolition and rough grading; building construction; and paving noise levels are representative of worse case conditions, since it is assumed that all the equipment contained on site would operate simultaneously and continuously for at least 80 percent of the work day. Therefore, the noise levels presented in Table 20 represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of construction noise. The existing ambient noise level at the closest sensitive receptor to the project site is 56.1 dba Leq (Noise Measurement 1 in Table 14). Construction would increase ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors to up to about 77 dba CNEL during the demolition and rough grading stage. Project construction would substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels and the applicable noise threshold of 65 dba for construction in the CMC Section F. 102

107 Compliance with Mitigation Measure N-1 and N-2 would ensure that construction noise levels remain below the CMC threshold of 65 dba requiring construction noise reduction methods to reduce noise associated with project construction and comply with the permitted noise thresholds, and provide a coordinator to handle noise complaints, respectively. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce construction-related noise during project construction to a less than significant level. N-1 Construction-Related Noise Reduction. The following measures shall be required during project construction: a. Mufflers. During project construction, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers standards. Use of manufacturercertified mufflers associated with construction equipment generally reduces noise levels by 5 dba, but has been shown to reduce noise levels by up to 8 dba. 1 b. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors. c. Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging areas shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors. d. Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers. e. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction. f. Temporary Noise Barrier. Temporary sound attenuation barriers (e.g. sound curtains) with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 20 or greater, based on sound transmission loss data taken according to ASTM Test Method E90, shall be used along the proposed project construction boundaries during project construction. If an STC-rated product is not available or not feasible for use, a product with a similar industry-standard specification, or a product that would achieve a similar insertion loss based on a manufacturer or supplier recommendation would be an acceptable substitute. Sound attenuation barriers constructed at the property lines to a height of 12 feet (to completely block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receptors) with an STC rating of at least 20 are capable of 1 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Melrose Triangle Project, City of West Hollywood

108 reducing noise levels by approximately 8 db(a). 2 To be effective, the gaps between adjacent panels must be filled-in to avoid having noise penetrate directly through the barrier and the barrier should be positioned as close as possible to the noise source. g. City Enforcement. The Building Office of the shall enforce noise-attenuating construction requirements. a. Excavation, grading, and other construction activities related to project construction shall comply with City restrictions on hours of construction activity. b. All construction vehicles, such as bulldozers and haul trucks, shall be prohibited from idling in excess of 10 minutes. c. The contractor shall inspect construction equipment to ensure that such equipment is in proper operating condition and fitted with standard factory silencing features. Construction equipment shall utilize all standard factory silencing features, such as equipment mufflers, enclosures, and barriers. N-2 Monitor Noise. Prior to project construction the project applicant shall disseminate essential information to residences and implement a complaint/response tracking system. The construction contractor shall notify residents within 500 feet of the construction areas of the construction schedule in writing before construction begins. The construction contractor will designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator will determine the cause of the complaint and will ensure reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem when feasible. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the written notification of the construction schedule sent to nearby residents. The 12 foot temporary noise barrier, as required by Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce construction noise impacts with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of at least 20 along the project boundaries reducing the sound level from construction by approximately 8 dba (HUD, 1985). Mufflers required on construction equipment would further reduce noise associated with project construction. This analysis conservatively assumes that standard muffler equipment would reduce noise from construction by 5 dba. Together these noise reduction requirements would reduce noise from project construction by 13 dba. Therefore, ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors would be reduced to 64 dba during project construction, which is below the CMC 65 dba threshold. Additional requirements included in Mitigation Measure N- 1 would further reduce ambient noise levels during project construction. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Noise Guidebook

109 e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? The airport closest to the City is Cable Airport, a privately-owned public use airport located just across the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County line east of Claremont in the City of Upland. Figure 6-7 of the General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element identifies Cable Airport Noise Contours within the City (, 2009). The project area is outside the 60 dba contour for the airport. Therefore, airport-related noise would not exceed the 60 to 65 dba level and impacts would be less than significant. NO IMPACT 105

110 This page left intentionally blank. 106

111 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? KGI anticipates its campus population will increase over the next few years as a result of additional enrollment and faculty hires, as well as an increase with the construction of the 292 housing units, which includes both KGI students, and for a temporary period (three to four academic years) CGU students residing in the new housing. The total population (including CGU students) is anticipated to increase from 456 ( academic year) to its peak at 881 ( academic year) and then decrease to 723 ( academic years) once CGU students are phased out of the housing. Although it is likely that not all of the students would live in the, this analysis assumes the worst case scenario where the long-term estimate of 723 new students and faculty/staff would live in Claremont. An addition of 723 persons would increase the population to 36,941 persons (DOF, 2016) which is within the SCAG 2035 population forecasts for the City of 38,200 (SCAG, 2016). In addition, as discussed in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the adopted housing policies in the City s General Plan, which support the development of student housing for the Claremont Colleges. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. NO IMPACT b, c) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The two proposed buildings would be developed on a vacant lot and would not displace existing housing or people. The three proposed parking expansion areas would also be 107

112 developed on vacant land and would not displace any existing housing or people. There would be no displacement of people or housing and no impact would occur. NO IMPACT 108

113 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? a (i) Fire protection? The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (LACFD) provides fire services for the through three fire stations located in Claremont, as well as through mutual aid available from fire stations located in adjacent cities. The fire station closest to the project site is Fire Station 101 located approximately 0.2 miles north of the project site at 606 West Bonita Avenue,. This station houses a paramedic squad that handles emergencies along with fire crews and engines. Because LACFD serves emergency cases within the County regardless of City boundaries, services from stations in Pomona, San Dimas, or Glendora can be dispatched depending on availability and distance. LACFD can also deploy ladder companies from the cities of Glendora and Pomona. In the event of a major fire, the County has mutual aid agreements with cities and counties so that additional personnel and fire-fighting equipment can augment LACFD (Claremont Fire Services, 2016). The proposed project would increase campus building area approximately 225,295 square feet. As part of the City s budget process, the City regularly consults with the LACFD to assess needs for service and service goals and standards. The City also involves the LACFD in the development review process so that fire prevention and emergency response features can be incorporated into development projects. All site and building improvements for the proposed project would be subject to review and approval by the LACFD prior to obtaining a building 109

114 permit. There has been preliminary review of the project and site plans by LACFD. To accommodate the LACFD access requirements the proposed buildings would require reduced setbacks to accommodate fire access lane locations. Additionally, the project site is located in a developed part of Claremont that is already served by LACFD with adequate access to firefighting infrastructure such as fire hydrants and has short response times due to the projects proximity to Fire Station 101. The project site is therefore, adequately served by LACFD and the increase of 723 new residents would not result in the need to construct facilities for additional fire protection services. Additionally, all of the residential units would be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems; fire hydrants would be installed at key locations along the roadways abutting and internal to the project areas as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to meet the hose-pull requirements and provided adequate fire access for the proposed project. Furthermore, during the City s development review process, the project applicant would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required Fire Facilities Impact Fee, as outlined in Section (imposition and Payment of a Fire Facilities Impact Fee) of the City s Municipal Code, As stated in Section , the fee pays new development s fair share of the costs of constructing and equipping new fire protection facilities, in order to meet the fire protection service needs of new development and to maintain adequate fire service levels within the City. Currently, the Fire Facilities Impact Fee is $0.20 per square foot of building area; furthermore, development of the proposed project is required to comply with the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the and LACFD. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City s and LACFD s building permit and development review process. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on fire protection and emergency services and no mitigation measures are necessary. Although there are a few other projects within the general area of the project site the cumulative development of the projects would not significantly impact fire services. As with the proposed project, the other cumulative projects have been or would be subject to review and approval by LACFD prior to building permits and certification of occupancy issuance. Additionally, during the City s development process, development of the cumulative projects have complied or would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including payment of the required fire Facilities Impact Fee. Furthermore, there are adequate existing firefighting resources available in and near the. In consideration of the proceeding factors, the proposed project s contribution to cumulative fire protection impacts would be reduced to less than significant; therefore impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (ii) Police protection? The project site is served by the Claremont Police Department (PD) which consists of a total of 39 sworn police officers, one sworn reserve police officer, and several non-sworn employees, 110

115 part-time employees, and volunteers (Personal Communication, Paul Cooper, Police Chief Claremont Police Department 7/19/16). Additionally, there are over 100 volunteer Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) members that assist with the task force in the City (Personal Communication, Amaya). The closest police department to the project site is located at 570 West Bonita Avenue in Claremont, next door to Fire Station 101, approximately 0.2 miles north of the project site. The proposed project would accommodate up to 356 people residing on the KGI campus and an increase in campus building area of approximately 225,295 square feet. An increase in 723 people would not substantially change the ratio of officers per 1,000 residents in the City, which currently stands at 1.01 (37 sworn officers to a January 2015 City population of 36,282), and would stand at 1.00 if all housing units in the proposed project were fully occupied. This slight decrease in officer ratio would not create a significant impact, or create the need for additional staffing or facilities (Personal Communication, VanderVeen). Because the area in which the project site is located is currently served by the Claremont PD and because implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need to expand existing facilities or build new facilities, impacts would be less than significant. Although there are a few other projects within the general area of the project site the cumulative development of the projects would not significantly impact police services. As with the proposed project, the other cumulative projects have been or would be subject to review and approval by the Claremont PD prior to building permits and certification of occupancy issuance. Additionally, during the City s development process, development of the cumulative projects have complied or would be required to comply with the requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued. Furthermore, there are adequate existing police resources available in and near the. In consideration of the preceding factors, the proposed project s contribution to cumulative police protection impacts would be reduced to less than significant; therefore impacts from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (iii) Schools? The population increase created by implementation of the proposed project, as described above, would consist of graduate students attending KGI or other Claremont Colleges, as well as faculty and staff. The proposed project would provide graduate student housing that would have a demographic similar to an undergraduate housing project because it would not offer housing on a per unit basis, but rather a per bed basis where residents enter into an agreement for a room rather than the entire unit. As such, the proposed project would be similar to that of undergraduate students and would not be expected to increase the enrollment of Kindergarten through 12 th grade students at local school districts. However, the addition of faculty and staff may result in the slight increases to local schools. The proposed project would increase the number of faculty and staff living on campus from 103 ( academic year) to 124 (years ). Assuming the additional 12 faculty and staff living on campus would have children the proposed project would incrementally increase students within the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD). Using a conservative household estimate of 0.12 students from Kindergarten through 5 th grade, 0.07 for students from 6 th through 8 th grade, and 0.07 for students 9 th through 12 th grade, the proposed project would generate six additional students in 111

116 CUSD schools (City of Los Angeles, 2012). Additionally, the proposed project would pay school impact fees for the anticipated increase in facilities. Consequently, there would be no impact to local schools. NO IMPACT a (iv) Parks? As discussed in Section XV, Recreation, while the proposed project could result in an incremental increase in the use of the existing parks, the residents/parkland ratio would not change and the project would have no direct impact to existing parks and recreation facilities. In addition, the project includes onsite recreational amenities such as the proposed pool and fitness center as well as courtyards. Claremont has a broad range of community facilities, programs, and parks available to the public. Claremont has 21 parks, ranging from the 0.5 acre Shelton Park to the 24.9-acre Thompson Creek Trail, a linear park along the northern end of the City, offering a 2.8-mile trail for pedestrians and bicycles, in addition, the City has 1,837 acres of hillside land included in the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park/Sycamore Canyon Park ( Parks website, August 2014). The City s parks vary from purely passive recreational use facilities to parks with heavily programed use. The City offers diverse recreational programs at each park, depending upon the size of the park and the type of facilities available, many of Claremont s parks are adjacent to school or community center facilities. The closest parks to the Plan area (within one mile) are Rosa Torrez Park approximately 0.15 mile north and Wheeler Park approximately 0.45 mile south of the project site. In addition to City facilities, the other Claremont Colleges own and operate various athletic fields and facilities, providing additional recreational opportunities. Other recreational facilities, including private facilities such as recreational lands that are not owned or maintained by the also provide recreational opportunities for the community, these include the Angeles National Forest, which covers over 650,000 acres, the San Gabriel Mountains National Forest, which covers Claremont s northern boundary, Marshal Canyon County Park, located in la Verne, the private Claremont Club, and the 86-acre Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden, which is open to the public. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts to recreation facilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (v) Other public facilities? A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities (such as libraries), which would exceed the capacity available to serve the project site, necessitating a new or physically altered facility, the construction of which would have significant physical impacts on the environment. Claremont has one public library, located at 208 N. Harvard Avenue. The library has been at its current location since 1928, and is part of the County of Los Angeles Public Library system. The 112

117 Claremont Library is a 22,921 square foot facility with a collection of 168,000 books and other materials. In addition to public libraries, the Claremont University Consortium (CUC) also operates the Claremont Colleges Library, which includes the Honnold/Mudd Library, located at 800 Dartmouth Avenue and the CUC Records Center, located at 2038 W 11 th Street in the City of Upland. The proposed project would increase population by approximately 723 graduate students and faculty/staff, which is approximately 1 percent of the current citywide population. Therefore, the increased demand would be nominal and public facilities would continue to accommodate the needs of the City. Impacts related to public facilities would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 113

118 This page left intentionally blank. 114

119 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a, b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Claremont has a broad range of facilities, programs, and parks available to the public. The City contains 22 parks ranging from the 0.5-acre Shelton Park to the 24.9-acre Thompson Creek Trail. The City owns and operates approximately acres of public parkland, including community parks, neighborhood parks, sports parks, and mini-parks/pocket parks. In addition, the City has 1,837 acres of hillside land included in the Claremont Hills Wilderness Park/Sycamore Canyon Park (Claremont, City Parks, 2016). The parks closest to the project site are Rosa Torrez Park approximately 0.15 miles north and Wheeler Park approximately 0.45 miles south of the project site. The proposed project would develop recreational opportunities for students such as a pool area and fitness facility. The City s current population is estimated at 36,218 people (California DOF, 2016). Therefore, the ratio of public parks acreage to residents in the City is currently 4.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The proposed project would add approximately 723 people to the population through the building of 292 residential units. This would increase the population to 36,941 persons and would only incrementally reduce the parkland ratio to 4.4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. This ratio remains above the City s General Plan target ratio of 4.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Thus, while there would be an incremental increase in use of the existing parks, the ratio of residents per park would remain within the City s standard and impacts to existing parks would be less than significant. The proposed project includes construction of recreational facilities, the impacts of which are analyzed herein. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 115

120 This page left intentionally blank. 116

121 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a, b, e, f) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; result in inadequate emergency access; or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 117

122 The October 2016 Traffic and Parking Study [for the] Keck Graduate Institute Student Housing Project Plus Campus Population Growth in the prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) identified the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The Kimley-Horn study is included as Appendix Fa. The following analysis of the potential traffic and parking is based on the traffic study. Analysis Methodology The traffic analysis was conducted in accordance with traffic analysis requirements and evaluated seven intersections that may be affected by the proposed project: Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive, Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue, Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard, Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue, Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue, Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard, and Arrow Highway at College Avenue. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was used for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and delay forecasts translated to a level of service (LOS) designation. To determine intersection operations the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines were used and Intersection Capacity (ICU) methods of determining intersection operations were applied. The City of Claremont does not publish level of significance criteria, therefore the threshold of significance were selected as an adaption of the Los Angeles County CMP Guidelines. Where the project adds two or more seconds of delay to an intersection operating deficiently, project impacts were determined to be significant. Table 21 shows performance criteria. Table 21 Circulation System Performance Criteria Proposed Project Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Intersection Minimum LOS Requirements Major Arterial Secondary Arterial Rural Secondary Arterial Collector Local Street Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 LOS E minimum acceptable operations LOS D minimum acceptable operations LOS D minimum acceptable operations LOS C minimum acceptable operations LOS B minimum acceptable operations Based on the s minimum acceptable operations for each roadway segment, as shown in Table 21, the minimum acceptable LOS for each intersection analyzed as part of the proposed project is shown in Table

123 Table 22 Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard Arrow Highway at College Avenue Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 LOS D LOS B LOS D LOS E LOS E LOS E LOS E Existing Conditions Access to the project site is provided by a network of arterial and local streets. The north-south arterial street nearest to the project site is Indian Hill Boulevard and the nearest east-west arterial street is Arrow Highway. Existing intersection peak period traffic turning movement volumes were collected on a typical weekday during September 2014 and September KGI classes were in session during data collection periods. Morning peak period, from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and evening peak period, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., turning movement volumes were collected at the seven intersections analyzed under the proposed project. Table 23 shows the summary of peak hour intersection operation during existing conditions. The existing LOS for all seven intersections is acceptable under the existing conditions. Intersection Table 23 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Conditions Traffic Control A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U C/22.5 B/14.9 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.6 A/9.5 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/11.1 B/12.1 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/14.4 B/10.5 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U D/29.0 E/41.4 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S C/30.0 C/32.6 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S C/29.6 C/22.9 Source: Kimley-Horn, S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project were based on trip generation rates published in the Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition. The ITE land uses category most similar to the housing element of the proposed project is Apartment. For the growth in non-residential students, ITE land use College/University was applied. Using these trip generation rates, the proposed buildings would generate 1,942 daily trips, including 149 trips in the morning peak hour and 181 trips in the evening peak hour. The growth in non-resident 119

124 students commuting to campus would generate 507 daily trips, with 41 trips in the morning peak hour, and 106 trips in the evening peak hour. The proposed project would increase enrollment at KGI from 465 students to 723 students in the academic year, 40 of which would not reside on campus. Existing Plus Project Conditions The Existing Plus Project analysis scenario is a hypothetical scenario that assumes completion of the project and full absorption of the project traffic on the surrounding street network at the current time. Project-related peak hour trips were added to the existing peak hour volumes to evaluate Existing Plus Project conditions. Intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the morning and evening peak hours. The results are shown in Table 24. Table 24 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Without Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Without Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U C/22.5 C/20.4 B/14.9 C/16.5 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.6 A/10.0 A/9.5 B/10.1 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/11.1 B/12.2 B/12.1 B/12.9 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/14.4 B/14.3 B/10.5 B/10.4 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S C/30.0 C/31.9 C/32.6 C/33.6 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S C/29.6 C/31.9 C/22.9 C/24.3 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS and would have a significant traffic impact. U D/29.0 F/57.6 E/41.4 F/123.1 As indicated in Table 24, with the addition of project related traffic, all seven analyzed intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the exception of the Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue intersection (southbound), which would operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and a p.m. peak hours. The LOS deficiency at this intersection is caused by the southbound right and left turns, which must wait for a gap in the traffic on the east and west movements. The project impact at the intersection of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue would be significant during both peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels by restricting turning movements onto Arrow Highway from Bucknell Avenue, improving the LOS from F to B during both peak hours. Cumulative (Opening Year 2018) Conditions without Project For purposes of the traffic analysis, the Opening Year for completion of the proposed project is assumed to be Future traffic conditions without the proposed project were analyzed for the Opening Year. Based on the Los Angeles County CMP the general traffic volume growth factor for the Claremont area is from and from For this analysis, the growth 120

125 rate is assumed for 4 years (1.06), based on traffic count data taken in 2014, 1.05 for 3 years for data taken in 2015 and an assumed project completion year of These growth rates were applied to existing traffic volumes at each of the seven study intersections to forecast future volumes for the opening year scenario. Cumulative Projects Traffic Planned and pending projects in the cities of Claremont, Montclair, and Upland were considered in this analysis. Cumulative projects consist of projects that have been approved, and are not yet fully constructed or occupied; and pending projects that are currently going through the application and approval process. Cumulative projects within a 2.5-mile radius of the project site were included in the analysis. A complete list of cumulative projects and cumulative projects trip generation is included in Appendix Fa. Opening Year without Project Conditions Future forecasted intersection turning movement volumes for Opening Year without Project conditions were developed by applying the annual growth factor to existing traffic volumes, then adding the cumulative projects traffic volumes. All seven study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year without Project scenario, and the results are shown in Table 25. Table 25 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 without Project Intersection Traffic Control A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/25.5 C/16.2 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.7 A/9.6 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.1 B/13.4 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/14.9 B/10.4 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U E/41.3 F/157.0 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/37.4 D/43.9 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/39.6 C/24.5 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. As shown in Table 25, with the addition of area growth and traffic from the cumulative projects, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during both morning and evening peak hour with the exception of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue (southbound), which would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Cumulative (Opening Year 2018) with Project Opening Year traffic conditions with the proposed project were analyzed by adding the estimated trips that would be generated by the proposed project and by the growth of nonresident KGI students to the forecasted Opening Year without project traffic volumes. The results of the Opening Year with Project Conditions are shown in Table

126 Intersection Table 26 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 with Project Traffic Control Without Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Without Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/25.5 C/23.0 C/16.2 C/18.2 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.7 B/10.1 A/9.6 B/10.2 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.1 B/13.0 B/13.0 B/14.6 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/14.9 B/14.9 B/10.4 B/10.4 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U E/41.3 F/124.8 F/157.0 F/410.1 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/37.4 D/41.3 D/43.9 D/46.8 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/39.6 D/45.6 C/24.5 D/26.5 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS and would have a significant traffic impact. With the addition of proposed project traffic, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS except the Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue (southbound) intersection. That intersection would operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour and a LOS F at the p.m. peak hour. The deficiency is caused by the number of vehicles waiting to make the southbound left-turn movement, which are delayed by heavier movements in the east and west direction along Arrow Highway. Although a small volume of traffic is added from the proposed project to the southbound left-turn movement, the average delay increases quickly as each vehicle waits for a gap in traffic to proceed. The project impact would be significant at the intersection of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue during both peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels by restricting turning movements. Restricting the southbound left-turn movement during the peak hours would improve the LOS to LOS B during both the morning and evening peak hours. A summary of peak hour intersection operation with Mitigation Measure T-1 is shown in Table

127 Table 27 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Opening Year 2018 with Project Mitigation Intersection Traffic Control With Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U C/23.0 C/23.0 C/18.2 C/18.2 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U B/10.1 B/10.0 B/10.2 B/10.2 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/13.0 B/13.4 B/14.6 C/15.2 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/14.9 B/14.9 B/10.3 B/10.2 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U F/124.8 B/11.7 F/410.1 B/10.6 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/41.3 D/40.0 D/46.8 D/47.9 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/45.6 D/45.6 D/26.5 C/26.5 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. Future Year 2020 Conditions without Project Per City requirements, the Future Year 2020 conditions without the proposed project were evaluated. For Future Year 2020 Conditions, the growth rate is assumed for six years (1.10), for traffic count data taken in 2014, and 1.08 for five years for data taken in These growth rates were applied to existing traffic volumes at the seven study intersection locations to forecast future volumes for the Future Year 2020 scenario. Forecasted intersection turning movement volumes for Future Year 2020 Without Project conditions were developed by applying the annual growth factor to existing traffic volumes, then adding the cumulative projects traffic volumes, which were identified above. Each study intersection was analyzed for the Future Year 2020 Without Project scenario, and the results are presented in Table 28. Table 28 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 without Project Intersection Traffic A.M. Peak Hour Control LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/27.2 C/16.9 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.7 A/9.6 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.3 B/13.7 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/15.5 B/10.6 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U F/61.9 F/211.3 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/39.5 D/47.2 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/42.8 C/25.0 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) As shown in Table 28, the addition of area growth and traffic from the cumulative projects, all seven of the study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during both morning and evening peak hours with the exception of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue 123

128 (southbound) with an a.m. peak hour LOS F and p.m. peak hour LOS F. Therefore, with the addition of ambient growth and cumulative project traffic, the unsignalized intersection at Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours. Future Year 2020 Conditions with Project Future Year 2020 traffic conditions with the proposed project were analyzed by adding the estimated trips that would be generated by the proposed project to the forecasted Future Year 2020 without project traffic volumes. Since the intersection of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue was an impacted intersection in the Opening Year 2018 scenario, Mitigation Measure T- 1 to restrict the southbound left-turn movement was assumed to be in place and was applied to the Future Year 2020 With Project conditions analysis. The results of the Future Year 2020 with Project Conditions scenario are shown in Table 29. Intersection Table 29 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 with Project Traffic Control Without Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Without Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/27.2 C/24.4 C/16.9 C/19.1 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.7 A/10.0 A/9.6 B/10.3 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.3 B/13.2 B/13.7 C/15.4 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/15.5 B/15.6 B/10.6 B/10.5 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U F/61.9 B/12.5 F/211.3 B/10.3 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/39.5 D/40.5 D/47.2 D/49.7 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/42.8 D/45.5 C/25.7 C/25.7 Source: Kimley-Horn, S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. With addition of proposed project traffic and Mitigation Measure T-1, all seven study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in the morning and evening peak hours. Built-Out Year2030 Conditions without Project Per City requirements, the Build-Out Year 2030 conditions without the proposed project were evaluated. For Build-Out Year 2030 Conditions, the growth rate is assumed for 16 years (1.16), for traffic count data taken in 2014, and 1.14 for 15 years for data taken in These growth rates were applied to existing traffic volumes at the seven study intersection locations to forecast future volumes for the Build-Out Year 2030 scenario. Forecasted intersection turning movement volumes for Build-Out Year 2030 without Project conditions were developed by applying the annual growth factor to existing traffic volumes, then adding the cumulative projects traffic volumes, which were previously identified above. All seven study intersections were analyzed for the Build-Out Year 2030 without Project scenario. The results are shown in Table

129 Table 30 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Build-Out Year 2030 without Project Intersection Traffic Control A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/31.5 C/18.5 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.8 A/9.7 P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.6 B/14.3 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/17.7 B/10.9 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U F/91.1 F/316.7 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/44.8 E/55.4 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/51.3 C/25.7 Source: Kimley-Horn, S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. With the addition of area growth and traffic from cumulative projects all seven study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during both morning and evening peak hours with the exception of the Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue (southbound) intersection, which would operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, with the addition of ambient growth and cumulative project traffic, the unsignalized intersection at Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue would operate at an unacceptable LOS during both peak hours. Build-Out Year 2030 with Project Conditions Build-Out Year 2030 traffic conditions with the proposed project were analyzed by adding the estimated trips that would be generated by the proposed project to the forecasted Build-Out Year 2030 without Project traffic volumes. Since the intersection of Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue was an impacted intersection in the Opening Year 2018 scenario, Mitigation Measure T-1 to restrict the southbound left-turn movement was assumed to be in place and was applied to the Build-Out Year 2030 With Project conditions analysis. The results of the Build-Out Year 2020 with Project Conditions analysis are shown in Table

130 Intersection Table 31 Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation Future Year 2020 with Project Traffic Control Without Project A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation A.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Without Project P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) With Project Mitigation P.M. Peak Hour LOS/Delay (sec) Cambridge Avenue at Wharton Drive U D/31.5 D/28.3 C/18.5 C/21.4 Santa Fe Street at Bucknell Avenue U A/9.8 B/10.1 A/9.7 B/10.5 Santa Fe Street at Indian Hill Boulevard U B/12.6 B/13.6 B/14.3 C/16.2 Arrow Highway at Cambridge Avenue S B/17.7 B/18.0 B/10.9 B/11.1 Arrow Highway at Bucknell Avenue U F/91.1 B/13.4 F/316.7 B/10.5 Arrow Highway at Indian Hill Boulevard S D/44.8 D/46.2 E/55.4 E/59.4 Arrow Highway at College Avenue S D/51.3 D/54.6 C/25.7 C/26.4 Source: Kimley-Horn, S=signalized intersection. U=unsignalized intersection. LOS shown in bold indicates unacceptable LOS. With addition of proposed project traffic and Measure T-1, all seven study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in the morning and evening peak hours. Congestion Management Program Compliance The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with the CMP requirements ensures a city s eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. Within the and vicinity, the CMP Highway System includes one arterial: Arrow Highway. In the project vicinity, the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard and Arrow Highway is a CMP monitoring intersection. The nearest freeway monitoring stations are located on the I-10 Freeway, west of Indian Hill Boulevard and on I-210 Freeway, east of Indian Hill Boulevard. Under existing plus project conditions the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during a.m. peak hours and LOS C during p.m. peak hours. During future 2018 cumulative conditions, future 2018 cumulative conditions with the proposed project, future 2018 cumulative conditions with the proposed project and proposed mitigation, future year 2020 cumulative conditions, and future year 2020 cumulative conditions with the proposed project the intersection would operate at an acceptable a.m. peak hour LOS of C and p.m. peak hour LOS E. During 2030 cumulative project conditions and 2030 cumulative project conditions with the proposed project the intersection would operate at an a.m. peak hour LOS of D and a p.m. peak hour LOS of E. Parking Analysis The CMC Section (B) requires: 126

131 prior to the approval of new development, institutions shall be required to have a parking management plan that addresses how the parking requirements of this section, Chapter , and other applicable sections will be met; how impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods will be minimized; and what enforcement tools will be used to prevent spill over parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Additionally, Section (G) requires the parking management plan to be implemented, monitored and enforced by the institution. On an annual basis, institutions shall submit to the City evaluations of the parking management plan: G. Institutions are responsible for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing their parking management plans, and shall submit to the City annual evaluations of their plans to ensure compliance with the provisions of the plan and this chapter. The annual evaluation shall include appropriate corrective actions to address any deficiencies of the plan or identified parking related problems within the Institutional District and/or adjacent residential neighborhoods. Such evaluation shall be submitted each year prior to the last day of November. KGI prepared the 2016 Parking Management Plan (PMP) in support of the proposed project (see Appendix Fb). According to the PMP, KGI currently has 660 surface parking spaces distributed across nine parking lots, labeled A through I, on its main campus along with an additional 106 parking spaces on their newly acquired property located at 121 S Indian Boulevard (refer to Figure 8). Parking in KGI is regulated by Campus Safety. Campus Safety is responsible for vehicle registration and parking enforcement at the Claremont Colleges and the KGI parking lots support the buildings within the KGI campus. The buildings located on the south side of Watson Drive and north side of Arrow Highway, are owned by KGI. They are leased out and are fully occupied by Technip, USA, Inc. and are operating as an office use. Parking for the building located at 535 Santa Fe Street, at the north end of campus, adjacent to Wharton Drive is supported by Lots A, B, and C. Parking for the building located at 517 Watson Drive is provided in Lots B, C, D, and E. Parking for the building located at 215 Wharton Drive is provided in Lots F, G, and H. Lot G is primarily used as visitor parking for the office building. Lot F is primarily used as employee parking for the office building. Any overflow demand out of Lot F goes to Lots B and C. Lot I, located on the west side of York Place, is the parking lot for the 215 building (refer to Figure 8). Data Collection To evaluate the existing parking demand, parking counts for each lot were collected hourly from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Thursday September 11, 2014 and Tuesday September 16, In review of the parking data, the highest demand for parking occurred at 2:00 PM for each respective weekday. The total number of parked vehicle collected at the 2:00 PM hour was 488 on Thursday and 563 on Tuesday. Of the nine KGI parking lots, there were four larger parking lots that experience a high demand. Those are Lots B, C, E, and F, which have 131, 121, 157, and 99 available parking spaces respectively. Overall the highest occupancy in the parking lots occurred throughout the day during the Tuesday counts. Lot B experienced a peak of 113 parked vehicles, resulting in a parking utilization of 86.3percent. Lot C at its peak had 119 occupied spaces out of 121 available 127

132 spaces over a two-hour period, resulting in parking utilization of 98.3percent. Lot E experienced a peak of 119 parked vehicles, resulting in parking utilization of 75.8percent. Lot F had all 99 available spaces occupied, including two vehicles that were illegally parking, resulting in a parking utilization of 102percent. See Appendix Fa for calculations and additional information. Field Observations Kimley-Horn conducted a field observation of the parking lots to identify any parking, circulation, or access issues within or around the nine KGI parking lots. The west leg of Watson Drive at Bucknell Avenue serves as the main access point to the campus as Bucknell Avenue provides direct access to Arrow Highway. Watson Drive is a meandering road that provides direct access to all of the parking lots except for Lot I. Another access point to the campus and the parking lots is provided from Wharton Drive at Watson Drive. Lots B and C can be accessed off of Watson Drive from the north and the south. Lot B has a third access point located on the northeast corner (also off of Watson Drive). Parking was concentrated on the north side of Lots B and C towards the 535 Santa Fe Street building and the south side of Lot B for the Technip Office building. Overall, both lots were mostly filled, which was consistent with the two days of data collection. Traffic may cut through Lot B and Lot C to get from one side of the campus to the other (as the roadway that divides the two lots connects to Lot A). Entering from the west leg of Watson Drive at Bucknell Avenue, the shared access point to Lot D and Lot E is located to the right. A basketball court is located immediately to the right after entering the driveway. From observation, both lots were mostly filled, with the majority of vehicles parked towards the south side of the lot. Lot G was observed to have limited parking spaces, but as previously mentioned, the majority of the spaces are reserved for visitors. Lot H, which is a smaller lot, had limited parking as many of the parking spaces were restricted for the company vehicle, loading vehicles, and clients. Most of the reserved parking was located on the south half of Lot H. Because of the parking space designations, Lot H was observed to have available parking spaces. Street parking in the project vicinity was observed and there were cars parked all along both sides of Wharton Drive, specifically the north-south segment, adjacent to Lot A, and the eastwest segment, adjacent to Lot B. Overall Parking Requirements The parking requirements for Existing Conditions (2014) and Opening Year (2018) were evaluated to determine the number of parking spaces needed to provide sufficient parking for the KGI campus and the Campus Housing Project. The highest parking demand is anticipated during the opening year of the project in 2018, due to the growth in KGI campus population and the Campus Housing Project having 50percent of the residents from other Claremont Colleges. Section of the CMC provides the following parking ratios for Institutional Districts: Education-College use with one space for each two regularly enrolled students and one space of 128

133 reach two employees. Although owned by KGI, the southern portion of the campus and 121 S. Indian Hill Boulevard are zoned B/IP (Business / Industrial Park). Section of the CMC establishes that the required parking spaces is, one per each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area; except for warehouse facilities one per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Existing (2014) Conditions The parking requirement per the CMC for Existing Conditions is 408 parking spaces, which includes the parking required for the Technip office building. Calculation details for existing conditions are shown in Table 32. Table 32 Existing (2014) Conditions Overall Parking Requirements per City Code Campus Requirement Quantity Rate Spaces Technip Office Space 89,000 square feet Student Enrollment 273 students Faculty/Staff Employee Source: Kimely-Horn, faculty/staff Total 408 Based on the parking demand evaluation presented earlier, the highest existing parking demand observed for the campus was 563 parking spaces utilized out of the 660 available. Since this existing parking demand exceeds the parking requirement per the CMC, the current demand of 563 parking spaces was used to represent the parking requirement for the Existing (2014) Condition. Opening Year 2018 Conditions The resulting campus parking requirement per the CMC for the added students and faculty/staff for Opening Year 2018 Conditions is 174 parking spaces. There would be a total of 356 residents living in the proposed campus housing project. Applying a rate of 0.8 parking spaces per bed per KGI student living in the project and 1.0 parking space per bed for other Claremont College (Non-KGI) students living in the project, the project requirement is estimated at 357 parking stalls. Although the proposed project requires 357 parking stalls to accommodate all residents, it is anticipated that 50percent of the residents would be KGI students and the KGI resident portion of the parking requirement is already encompassed in the Added Student Enrollment portion of the Campus Requirement. Since there is an overlap, a reduction of students is taken from the Campus Requirement with the student parking rate of 0.5/student applied. This results in a parking reduction of 99 parking spaces to avoid double-counting, resulting in a Campus Requirement of 75 parking spaces. In order to meet the assumed parking demands (not city code requirement), the total parking requirement for the added students, faculty/staff, and campus housing as part of the proposed project for Opening Year 2018 conditions is 432 parking spaces. This represents the peak added parking requirement for both Campus and proposed project combined. As mentioned 129

134 previously, the campus-wide parking demand requirement is 563 parking spaces. With the total added parking requirement of 432 parking spaces, the overall parking requirement for the Opening Year 2018 Conditions is 995 parking spaces. The details of the added parking requirements calculation for Opening Year 2018 Conditions are shown in Table 33. Table 33 Opening Year 2018 Conditions Parking Demand Requirement Quantity Rate Spaces Campus Requirement Added Student Enrollment Added Faculty/Staff Employee Project Requirement KGI Residents (50percent) Non-KGI Residents (50percent) 320 students faculty/staff Campus Requirement Total beds beds Project Requirement Total 357 KGI Student Reduction* -99 Total Added Campus and Project Requirement 432 Existing Parking Requirement 563 Opening Year 2018 Parking Requirement 995 Source: Kimely-Horn, 2016 *The parking requirement for KGI Residents has already been captured in the Student Enrollment portion of the Campus Requirement. Proposed Parking Supply The project includes modifications to Lots E, F, and I. In addition, a new parking lot would be constructed west of the new buildings and another new parking lot would be added west of the Technip Offices. The following describes the added parking spaces: Nine new stalls adjacent to the south side of the campus housing project would be added, increasing the total of spaces in Lot E from 157 to 166 parking spaces. The users of these spaces would be residents living in the proposed campus housing project. 80 new parking stalls would be added to Lot F to help accommodate the parking demand from the Technip building, increasing the total from 99 to 179 parking spaces. 21 new parking stalls would be added to Lot I adjacent to the York Building increasing the total from 37 to 58 parking spaces. Parallel parking spaces would be allowed adjacent to campus along Bucknell Avenue after the proposed Green Street buildout improvements for landscape/drainage are 130

135 added. A total of 22 marked parking spaces would be added and could be utilized in Lot D by the public. A new parking lot would be constructed in the area east of the KGI Building at 535 Watson and west of the proposed campus housing project. A total of 93 parking spaces would be added. These spaces would be used by the residents living in the proposed campus housing project. New on-street parking (Watson) on the campus internal private street (Watson Drive) - 9 spaces. Plans also include a possible expansion to the front (north) Technip parking lot (G), which could add approximately 31- new spaces if needed in the future, and which are not a part of the current construction and parking plans. The KGI campus currently has 660 parking spaces for the four buildings. A total of 212 parking spaces are proposed to be added to serve the campus, for a total of 872 parking spaces. Of the 212 new parking spaces, 110 spaces would be newly constructed and the other 106 would be temporarily provided from a lot at 121 S. Indian Hill Boulevard. Supply Management KGI is surrounded by primarily industrial and office park uses with residential neighborhoods on the south side of Arrow Highway and in the Claremont Village. However, because of the distance to campus, it is anticipated that neither residential neighborhoods would be impacted by campus activities (KGI PMP, 2016). To mitigate the potential impact of campus activities affecting parking for surrounding businesses, several parking management actions would be implemented as part of the proposed project to manage campus impact to the community (KGI PMP, 2016). Permits. KGI will require parking permits for all students, faculty, and staff to park in designated lots. To register a vehicle, students, faculty and staff must apply for a permit, on an annual basis, with the designated office responsible for issuing parking permits. Permit parking on campus would eliminate surrounding businesses from using campus parking as supplemental parking. Additionally, permit holders would be restricted from parking in off-campus spaces as per the Campus Parking Policy. Parking Lot Management. KGI will designate certain lots and/or spaces for the following uses: visitor, commuting students, faculty and staff, project residents only, and Technip employees only. Joint Use Parking. KGI and the proposed project will manage their respective parking lot inventory through the use of permits, where only permit holders would be able to park on those lots on the KGI campus. Parking Lot H, which is outside of the IE zoning designation, would be utilized by both Technip (USA), a tenant of KGI, and KGI faculty and staff on a first come, first served basis. Technip (USA) would not be allowed to utilize KGI campus parking, however, KGI shall have access to Parking Lot F, in addition to Parking Lot H, for evening and weekend parking, at which times, the demand for parking by Technip (USA) is minimal. This additional parking can accommodate special events at KGI. 131

136 Visitors. The KGI campus has designated visitor parking areas in Lots A and C for campus events. Visitors are required to request and obtain visitor parking permits. Visitor permits are to be displayed on the dash board of their motor vehicles. Additional visitor parking for casual visitors will be available on street parking along Bucknell Avenue as on-street parking. The City has also agreed to work with KGI to explore whether public street parking along Bucknell Avenue should be regulated with time restricted parking to help discourage students and staff use and made available for public/visitor use. Parking Enforcement and Monitoring. On campus parking enforcement is overseen by the Claremont Colleges Campus Safety office. Campus Safety patrols on campus lots will enforce permit parking system within the campus boundaries. Campus Safety shall issue tickets to students, faculty and staff who are improperly parked. Violations are subject to fines and towing. Campus Parking Policy. KGI shall adopt a Campus Parking Policy where KGI students, faculty, staff and visitors, while engaged in campus activities, shall not park in any parking space (1) not owned by the campus; nor (2) public parking spaces not adjacent to campus. The Campus Parking Policy would not apply to students, faculty and staff conducting an occasional visit to campus or the proposed project. Parking Hotline. Campus Safety of the Claremont University Consortium responds to members of the surrounding community who may want to report a parking violation. They can be reached at Additionally, a KGI staff member will be listed as a contact. Demand Management Total demand required parking would be reached by including transportation demand management (TDM) measure. KGI anticipates meeting its future parking requirement by achieving a total of three approved TDM measures, including Incentive Reduction, Revised Requirement, and Surplus. These are described below. Education, Communities, and Coordination. The proposed project and KGI will designate a staff member responsible for a monthly communication to faculty, staff and students on the KGI campus along with proposed project residents. The communication will be directed at educating the recipients as to transportation options below in addition to providing monthly updates to any changes in transportation options. Communication will be by with coordinator s contact information included. Also, the designated coordinator can assist in enrollment in respective programs in addition to being a resource for program participants. Rideshare Incentive Plan. KGI will offer two different Rideshare Incentive programs: A. A Rideshare Incentive Program for KGI employees who carpool to the campus. A carpool shall be defined as a non-commercial vehicle occupied by two or more persons, traveling together between their respective residences and the KGI campus. A ride share match list where personalized commute planning will be available by contacting COMMUTE. Enrolled participants in the program will 132

137 have access to carpool designated parking via special permit on a first come first served basis. B. A vanpool program will be made available subject to enrolling the minimum required number of eligible program participants. The transportation coordinators at both the KGI campus and the proposed project will develop a cluster analysis of commuter origination of those interested, and develop possible van pool routes. Coordinators will also assist in enrolling participants in a qualified van pool. Incentive for employees who take advantage of the programs above will be a monthly access to the fitness center in the project site. Bicycle Incentives. KGI would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative to cars. o o o Proposed project residents will have access to indoor, secured bicycle parking, in addition to other exterior bicycle racks located on the project site. KGI has bicycle racks on campus that are available for use. A bicycle repair station will be located inside the proposed project bicycle parking area for resident s use. KGI faculty and staff may have access after a check in process with property management as the bicycle parking is a secured area. Car Share Program. KGI would promote car share as a component to demand management. Pick up/drop off locations for car services such as Uber and Lift would be designated. Additionally, students would have access to a Zipcar service, allowing them to have access to short-term use of a car subject to terms and conditions of Zipcar. Student Transportation Demand Reduction Measure. To help reduce the number of students who drive to campus, KGI would send informational packages to all re-turning and regularly enrolled students highlighting rideshare and bicycle incentive programs. The recipients will also be informed that a car is a nonessential expense; (1) for those living in the proposed project buildings, they would be living in a residential community within walking distance to the Claremont Village with its shops, restaurants and other venues; and (2) for commuters, they would be informed of public transportation options and will be asked to consider environmental impacts of their decisions. Temporary Construction Parking Areas affected by construction activities, materials staging, and temporary construction parking for the proposed project would consist of the yellow and green highlighted areas as shown on Figure 18. Staging is anticipated to begin in January 2017 and would remain in place until each phase of construction is complete, anticipated to be prior to the start of the academic year. During construction, the following existing stalls would be closed for construction purposes: Lot P5 33 parking stalls at the north end of the lot and Lot P7 99 parking stalls. A total of 132 parking stalls would be temporary closed. The proposed project would provide for temporary replacement parking for faculty and staff at KGI s property located at 121 S. Indian Hill Boulevard, denoted in green on Figure 18, to alleviate the demand for parking on the remaining KGI lots. During the construction period there would be a net surplus of five parking 133

138 Keck Graduate Institute Mixed-Use Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration During construc on, the following exis ng parking stalls will be closed for construc on purposes: Lot P5 Lot P7 Total : 33 parking stalls (north end of the lot) : 99 parking stalls : 132 parking stalls Source: KGI, Parking Management Plan Temporary Construction Parking Figure

139 spaces above the required parking, within all of the KGI lots. Once the construction parking lots are complete and ready for use, students, faculty and staff, as well as Technip employees, would be able to park in the newly constructed parking lots (KGI PMP, 2016). Consistency with the General Plan Parking associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, specifically Policy of the Community Mobility Element to Require The Claremont Colleges and other institutions to provide parking in a manner that minimizes the impact on adjacent neighborhoods and Policy Work with The Claremont Colleges in the preparation of a parking management plan that includes enforcement tools to help ensure parking does not spill into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Such a plan may include incentives to promote the use of peripheral parking lots, reducing the need to have parking adjacent to all facilities. The proposed project would include temporary construction parking to prevent impacts to neighborhoods during construction and would provide sufficient parking for the KGI campus with the development of new parking lots. Additionally, the proposed project includes several supply and demand management measures to alleviate parking, as identified in the KGI Parking Management Plan. Conclusion Traffic. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would ensure that impacts associated with project traffic congestion are less than significant by restricting turning movements at Bucknell Avenue/Arrow Highway to maintain an acceptable LOS by restricting turning movements at Bucknell Avenue/Arrow Highway to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore, impacts associated with project traffic would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to traffic and circulation through implementing restricted turning movements to reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant. T-1 Restrict Turning Movements at Bucknell Avenue/Arrow Highway. The southbound left-turn movement from Bucknell Avenue onto eastbound Arrow Highway shall be restricted with signage during the morning peak hour (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening peak hours (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Traffic needing to go eastbound on Arrow Highway during peak hours shall turn southbound right from Bucknell Avenue onto westbound Arrow Highway and make a legal U-turn at un-signalized intersections at Notre Dame Road at Arrow Highway, Geneva Avenue at Arrow Highway, or Carleton Avenue at Arrow highway, or exit the KGI campus area via Santa Fe Street and make a westbound right-turn onto southbound Indian Hill Boulevard toward Arrow Highway. Parking. With completion of the new parking areas added by the proposed project, the KGI campus would have a parking surplus of 182 spaces beyond the total parking requirement for Opening Year 2018 conditions and 2019 and 2020 academic years are the only years where it is anticipated that there would be a deficiency of parking spaces (51 spaces is 2019 and 22 spaces in 2020). In future 2021 conditions the proposed project is anticipated to have a surplus of

140 parking spaces. Therefore, impacts associated with project parking would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The airport closest to the City is the Cable Airport, a privately-owned, public use airport located just across the Los Angeles/San Bernardino line east of Claremont in the City of Upland. Figure 6-5 of the General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element identifies Cable Airport Safety Zones, as identified in the Cable Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Claremont, 2009). However, as shown on Figure 6-5 of the General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element the proposed project is not within the Cable Airport Safety Zone. The proposed project does not include any buildings or other features that would interfere with aviation at this airport, and thus would not result in a change in air traffic patterns from an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, there would be no impact to air traffic patterns. NO IMPACT d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? Kimley-Horn performed a sight distance analysis at the intersection of Indian Hill Boulevard at Santa Fe Street to evaluate the visibility for the eastbound right-turn movement from Santa Fe Street onto southbound Indian Hill Boulevard. The existing intersection control is a two-way stop at the Santa Fe Street approaches and free-flow along Indian Hill Boulevard. The Gold Line Foothill Extension project will be modifying the at-grade crossing with Indian Hill Boulevard and raising the existing track elevation as it approaches Indian Hill Boulevard which may cause sight deficiencies at Indian Hill Boulevard and Santa Fe Street for the proposed project. Based on the preliminary engineering plan and profile sheet, the track elevation would be maintained as it crosses the west side of Indian Hill Boulevard; therefore, it is assumed that the elevation of Indian Hill Boulevard in the southbound direction would maintain the sight distance looking north from Santa Fe Street to be the similar to the existing condition (Kimley-Horn, 2016). The sight distance standards used in this analysis are Case B2 from the 2011 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Chapter 9 Intersections (Intersection Sight Distance). Case B2 was used for right turns at a stopped position from a minor street. Since the area is predominantly University/College, Office and Campus Housing, the passenger car was used as the design vehicle for the sight distance calculations. Table 34 shows the site distance requirements for Case B2 and passenger cars. The posted speed limit along Indian Hill Boulevard is 35 mph, therefore a sight distance requirement for the right-turn movement from Santa Fe Street is 390 feet. 136

141 Case Table 34 Site Distance Requirements Passenger Car 45 mph 35 mph 30 mph 25 mph B2 500 feet 390 feet 335 feet 280 feet Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 Based on field observations, a driver waiting at the stop line at Santa Fe Street can see at least 400 feet to the north, which is just beyond the intersection of First Street. Therefore, there are no sight distance issues for the eastbound right-turn from Santa Fe Street to southbound Indian Hill Boulevard, and potential traffic hazards would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 137

142 This page left intentionally blank. 138

143 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a, b, e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? The Community Services Department maintains main line sewers within the City. The City maintains jurisdiction over sanitary sewer lines in the streets. Wastewater effluent flows from City wastewater conveyance facilities to regional truck lines, which deliver wastewater to the Pomona Water Reclamation Plan (WRP), a regional wastewater treatment 139

144 facility located in the City of Pomona. This facility is operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and is a part of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County s Joint Outfall System. The WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 15 million gallons of wastewater per day and serves a population of approximately 130,000 people. Approximately 8 million gallons per day of the reclaimed water is reused at over 190 different reuse sites for landscape irrigation, dust control, and industrial uses. The remainder of the reclaimed water is discharged into the San Jose Creek channel, where it is allowed to percolate to groundwater in the unlined portions of the San Gabriel River before flowing into the ocean. The WRP has the capacity to treat up to 15 million gallons of wastewater per day (Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County website, May 2016). The WRP currently treats an average of 8.57 million gallons per day (personal communication, Raza, December 2013). The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or U.S. EPA, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los Angeles Region regulate the water reclamation operations at the Pomona WRP. The Pomona WRP is issued Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. R ) with guidelines for the operation and maintenance of facilities and effluent discharge standards, as well as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES No. CA ). The receiving water for discharge is the South Fork San Jose Creek. The proposed project involves two four-story buildings totaling approximately 225,295 square feet and would provide residences for 396 students. With a wastewater generation rate of 75 gallons per day (gpd) per person the proposed project would generate 29,700 gallons of wastewater per day (Los Angeles, 2006). With a wastewater generation rate of 280/1,000 gross square feet of the proposed 2,906 square foot café/lounge would generate approximately 814 gpd of wastewater. Currently, the Pomona WRP processes an average of 8.57 million gpd and has the capacity to treat up to 15 million gpd. The addition of 30,514 gpd, or approximately million gpd, that would be generated by the proposed project represents percent of the total capacity remaining at the Pomona WRP. Utility Systems Science & Software, Inc. (US 3 ) completed the April 2016 report Wastewater Flow Monitoring Services for Keck Graduate Institute Sewer Study to analyze the existing sewer system and the effects from the proposed project (Appendix G) (US 3, 2016). The sewer system assessment was developed for current conditions to determine potential capacity limitations within the monitored sewer line. Flow monitoring equipment was used at a manhole at Bucknell Avenue at Watson Drive to collect data for the sewer system assessment (US 3, 2016). The Bucknell Avenue at Watson Drive site has capacity available at peak flow. The velocity at the studied intersection for an 8-inch pipe with a slope of 1.01percent, with the level at half pipe, the velocity is expected to be 2.33 feet per second (fps), which produced an expected capacity of 0.26 mgd (million gallons per day). Because peak flow at the measurement location was mgd, there should be capacity available for an additional mgd before the pipe exceeds its depth/diameter (d/d) limit of 0.50 at peak flow. According to common sewer design, the d/d ratio for gravity drains of 12 inches in diameter or less should be no greater than 0.50 for the ultimate peak flow conditions. Under the most conservative conditions, using the average velocity observed during this study (0.62 fps), the Bucknell Avenue at Watson Drive location would still have capacity available for an additional mgd before the pipe 140

145 exceeds its d/d limit (US 3, 2016b). Therefore, the sewer system would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and would not require expansion of any wastewater facilities. However, the preliminary sewer plans show that the proposed parking lot west of the Technip building would require a slope cut between 6 to 12 feet. A City sewer line is located within the sloped area that is approximately 7 feet below grade, which connects to the Technip building to the City s sewage system. Therefore, if at a minimum the slope is cut by 6 feet the ground coverage over the sewer line would be very shallow, or if the slope is cut between 7 to 12 feet, the sewer line would be exposed. Under either circumstance, the City s Engineering Department recommends that the sewer line is relocated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure U-1 is required to ensure continued sewer connection to the Technip building. Implementation of this measure would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure continued sewer connection to the Technip building. U-1 Technip Building Sewer Line Relocation. The applicant shall submit the final sewer and grading plans to the City s Engineering Department. The plans shall provide details regarding the relocation of the sewer line to ensure that all of the City s standards are met. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c) The Community Services Department and Engineering Division constructs and maintains storm drains within the City in coordination with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the KGI campus, which would result in increased stormwater flow. However, the proposed project would include a new underground detention system and a detention basin to mitigate for changes in stormwater flow on site. In addition adjacent public streets (Wharton and Bucknell) would be improved to include green streets design features (landscape bulb-outs with stormwater collection. As a result, while more impervious surfaces are being proposed, the stormwater collection improvements proposed would collect more water than previous within the public street areas and onsite water collection would exceed minimum requirement. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is required to ensure that the proposed detention system would comply with LID design principals. With implementation of this measure, potential impacts associated with the proposed detention system would be less than significant. Additionally, the new onsite landscaped areas would assist in minimizing the amount of runoff from the project site by maximizing permeable areas and decreasing the amount of runoff. Project-related landscaping and irrigation plans would also be required to be designed and installed in accordance with the City s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. For example, all irrigation systems are required to be designed to prevent runoff, overspray, low head drainage, and similar conditions. 141

146 Furthermore, drainage fees are required to be paid in conjunction with development in order to defray the costs of offsite drainage facilities required to accommodate the additional water runoff created by the development projects. The project applicant would be required to pay these fees prior to the issuance of grading permits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) The main water provider for the is Golden State Water Company (GSWC). Their water supply for the City includes Six Basins and Chino Basin as well as local and imported water from Three Valley s Municipal Water District (TVMWD), which receives water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The Claremont System encompasses the, portions of the cities of Pomona, Montclair, and Upland, and unincorporated land under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. Table 35 shows projected water supply and the GSWC s sources for the Claremont system. Table 35 Current and Planned Water Supplies for the Claremont System (AFY) Sources Potable Water Purchased from TVMWD 4,817 6,132 6,462 6,775 7,070 7,342 Six Basins (Groundwater) 5,530 7,119 7,119 7,119 7,119 7,119 Chino Basin (Groundwater) Recycled Water Total 10,620 13,662 13,992 14,305 14,600 14,872 Source: GSWC, 2010 The Claremont System pumps groundwater from the Six Basins Area and the Chino Basin. The Six Basins Area includes the cities of Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, and Upland and surrounding unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, which overlay six interconnected groundwater basins (Golden State Water, 2011). The six groundwater basins are the Live Oak, Canyon, Ganesha, Lower Claremont Heights, Upper Claremont Heights, and the Pomona Basins. The Claremont System, as operated by GSWC, supplements its local water supplies by purchasing water from the TVMWD, which wholesales water provided by Metropolitan. TVMWD has multiple sources for its water supply, including local supplies such as ground water, surface water, recycled water, and imported water. In most years, imported water provided by Metropolitan accounts for more than half of TVMWD s water supply. Approximately 50 percent of the Claremont System s water is supplied by TVMWD. Based on the Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2010), prepared by Metropolitan, it is reported that Metropolitan can provide reliable water supplies during normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions, as shown in Table

147 Table 36 Metropolitan Water Supply in Normal, Single and Multiple Dry Years (Thousands of Acre Feet) Normal Year Supply Totals 3,485 3,810 4,089 3,947 3,814 Demand Totals 2,006 1,933 1,985 2,049 2,106 Reserves (Supply Demand) 1,479 1,877 2,104 1,898 1,708 Single Dry Year Supply Totals 2,457 2,782 2,997 2,823 2,690 Demand Totals 2,171 2,162 2,201 2,254 2,319 Reserves (Supply Demand) Multiple Dry Year Supply Totals 2,248 2,417 2,520 2,459 2,415 Demand Totals 2,236 2,188 2,283 2,339 2,399 Reserves (Supply Demand) Source: Tables 2-9, 2-10 and 2-11, Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, November Metropolitan has a surplus of 1.7 million AFY in 2035 during normal years, a surplus of 371,000 AFY in 2035 during single dry year conditions and a surplus of 16,000 AFY in 2035 under multiple dry year conditions. The proposed project would generate demand for potable water of 37,125 gallons per day (about 41.5 AFY) based on 125 percent of wastewater generation. As shown in Table 36 under the worst case scenario there is a surplus of 16,000 AFY in 2035 under multiple dry year conditions. The proposed project s demand would be about 0.25 percent of the current water surplus under multiple dry year conditions. In addition, because the project includes 282 units (396 beds), this is under the 500-unit threshold for a water supply assessment. Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing resources. No new or expanded entitlements or resources would be needed to serve the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the water-efficient landscape requirements outlined in the City s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which applies to all new landscape installations of rehabilitation projects. For example, as outlined in Section (implementation Procedures) of this chapter, prior to installation, a Landscape Documentation package is required to be submitted to the City for review and approval of all landscape projects subject to the provisions of Chapter Property management and residents of the proposed project would also be required to adhere to the water conservation measures outlined in Chapter 8.30 (Water Conservation) of the City s Municipal Code. And, as outlined in Section (permanent water conservation requirements) of this chapter, property management and/or residents would be required to adhere to the following water conservation measures, which are effective at all times: Limits 143

148 on water hours, no excessive water flow or runoff, no washing down hard or paved surfaces, obligation to fix leaks, breaks or malfunctions, recirculating water required for water fountains and decorative water features. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed to include a number of sustainability features, including but not limited to: use of showerheads and toilets that optimize water flow. Other sustainability features would be considered by the City as the proposed project is refined during design and construction phase. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. Potential impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f,g) The s Community Services Department, Sanitation Division, manages the collection of solid waste and provides recycling services in the City. Solid waste is taken to the transfer station at the Claremont Corporate Yard, which is permitted to accept 100 tons of refuse per day (Claremont, 2009). From the Corporate Yard, refuse is transported to Mid Valley Landfill located approximately 22 miles east of Claremont in the City of Fontana. Additional landfills serving the include Azusa Land Reclamation County Landfill, Bakersfield Metropolitan, California Street Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Colton Sanitary Landfill, and several more. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), required each city s or county s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule showing that a city or county must divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation on and after January 1, Senate Bill (SB) 1016, passed in 2008, now requires the 50 percent diversion requirement to be calculated in a per capita disposal rate equivalent. Table 37 shows the s diversion rates since Reporting Year Table 37 Per Capita Solid Waste Diversion Rates Per Capita Landfill Disposal (lbs./person/day) Target Diversion Requirement to meet 50percent Reduction (lbs./person/day) Percent Diversion Rate Source: Personal Communication Mikula,,

149 Construction of the proposed project would involve site preparation activities (e.g. building) that would generate solid waste. Project development would involve the demolition of existing parking areas, drive aisles, sidewalks, and other improvements. The proposed projects construction and demolition activities would result in a temporary generation of solid waste. The proposed projects overall construction phase is estimated to take approximately 598 months. There is adequate landfill capacity in the region to serve the projects construction related solid waste needs, and project construction activities would not require additional landfill capacity. Additionally, solid waste generated during the proposed projects construction phase would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the construction phase. Also (in compliance with Assembly Bill 1826) the project would provide accommodations for collecting and loading recycled waste materials, including organics (food waste) from the new residential units. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code which outlines requirements for construction waste reduction, material selection, and natural resource conservation. However, the proposed project would implement several sustainable strategies in anticipation of LEED Gold Certification, including recycling of construction and related waste. As shown in Table 38, operation of the 292 student housing units would generate an estimated 3,571 pounds of solid waste per day or 652 tons per year. With a diversion rate of 66percent, the City s diversion rate for 2013, about 222 tons of solid waste per year or 1,214 pounds per day would be disposed of at area landfills. The Mid-Valley Landfill that serves the City is permitted to accept up to 7,500 tons of solid waste per day. The landfill accepts an average of 1,448 tons of solid waste per day, based on tonnage totals for 2009 and has a remaining capacity of 6,052 tons per day (CalRecycle, 2016). The proposed project would generate less than 0.01 tons per day, which is approximately less than 0.001percent of the remaining landfill capacity. Therefore, adequate landfill capacity is available to accommodate project-generated waste, and impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. Table 38 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Land Use Units Daily Generation Rate (lb/household/day) Total (lbs/day) Total (tons/year) Solid Waste Diverted (tons/year) Solid Waste Disposed in Landfills (tons/year) Residential , Source: CalRecycle, 2013 Note: lbs = pounds The proposed project would have less than significant impacts on utilities. Additional projects in the City include the Southwest San Jose Specific Plan, Pomona College 2015 Master Plan, and Serrano II Residential project. The proposed project in combination with other existing projects would not have a significant impact on utilities because the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on utilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 145

150 This page left intentionally blank. 146

151 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section IV, Biological Resources and Section V, Cultural Resources, the proposed project would have the potential to adversely affect bird nests and could adversely affect as yet undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO 1 and BIO 2, as well as Mitigation Measures CR 1 and CR 2 would ensure that impacts to biological and cultural resources are less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 147

152 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The proposed project would not preclude the City from meeting its long-term environmental goals of conserving energy and water. The proposed project would be submitted for LEED accreditation, which would conserve energy and water and require recycling of construction materials. As discussed in Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, the proposed project is consistent with the Claremont Sustainable City Plan and in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with the Claremont General Plan Open Space, Parkland, Conservation, and Air Quality Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with long-term environmental goals. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? There are several pending developments near the proposed project. Pomona College, approximately 0.75 miles northeast of the project site, has a long term Master Plan for future improvements to the Pomona College over the next 15 years. The Master Plan anticipates an increase in enrollment of 50 students, a net increase of 26 beds in student residences, and a net increase of 205,400 square feet of on-campus buildings (Pomona College, 2015). The Southwest San Jose Specific Plan proposes new land use standards and design guidelines to allow for the enhancement and redevelopment of a currently developed 3.96 acre site located approximately 0.67 miles south of the project site. The Serrano II Residential Project consists of 40 residential condominium homes with a density of approximately 11 dwelling units per acre, approximately 2 miles north of the project site. As discussed in Section XII, Noise, a Claremont Station and two additional tracks would be added to the Metro Gold Line approximately 0.01 miles north of the project site. Impacts related to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension project and Indian Hill Corridor Specific Plan are discussed in Section XII Noise. As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections I through XVII, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to all environmental issues with implementation of mitigation measures discussed in individual sections. Cumulative impacts with some of the resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. Cumulative impacts in these areas were found to either be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Some of the other resource areas (agricultural and forestry and mineral) were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions; therefore, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts for such issues and further analysis is not warranted. Other issues (such as Geology and Hazardous Materials) are by their nature site-specific in nature and impacts at one site do not contribute to cumulative impacts. 148

153 As confirmed by the Claremont Police Department and Los Angeles Fire Department the proposed project would not require any additional services or facilities and would therefore not cumulatively contribute to police and fire department impacts. The proposed project is expected to have limited kindergarten through 12 th grade students and in combination with other proposed projects nearby would not have a cumulative impact. Other public services, such as libraries, would be provided by the Claremont Colleges for the increase in student enrollment and the project would not have a cumulative impact on these services. As discussed in Section XV, Recreation, the anticipated population increase associated with the proposed project would remain above the City s General Plan target parkland ratio of 4.0 and would develop a fitness facility and pool for students and faculty/staff. Therefore, the project would not have significant cumulative impacts because the project would provide additional recreational opportunity for students and faculty/staff, reducing impacts to parks from nearby projects. Cumulative traffic impacts are discussed in Section XVI, Traffic/Transportation. As determined by the Kimley-Horn Traffic Study only one intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service in the year 2020 with development of the proposed project and the nearby projects listed above. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 to restrict turning movements at Bucknell Avenue/Arrow Highway the intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service. Traffic would therefore not contribute to cumulative impacts. The proposed project would remain within the planned water supplies for the Claremont system in both normal and dry years and would not have cumulative impact on water supply in the City. In addition, the per capita solid waste dispersion rate within the City would ensure that solid waste disposal from the proposed project and planned developments near the proposed project would not have an impact on solid waste. Therefore, utilities and series systems would not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable) with mitigation. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No significant impact was identified that could result in an adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant effect on human beings either directly or indirectly. In general, adverse environmental effects on human beings are associated with issues such as air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and traffic impacts. As detailed in Sections III, Air Quality, and VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not result in any significant effects. As detailed in Section XII, Noise, the proposed project would have the potential to directly impact human beings during project construction. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce impacts related to noise to a less than significant level. As detailed in Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would have the potential to directly impact human beings from traffic during project operation. Nonetheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would be required. 149

154 Incorporation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and T-1 would reduce impacts to human beings to less than a significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 150

155 REFERENCES Bibliography California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January Available online: California Air Resources Board Area Designations Maps/State and National. Accessed April California Department of Conservation (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed on April 2016 at: California DOC Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY Accessed April 2016 at: Accessed April California Department of Finance (DOF) E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State, Available online: California DOF E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1,2014 and Available online: California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Accessed at: California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board (CARB) A Report to the California Legislature on the Potential Health and Environmental Impacts of Leaf Blowers. February Available at: California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Action Team Biennial Report. Final Report. April California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Accessed April 2016 at: CalRecycle Waste Characterization Commercial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Accessed online at: 151

156 CalRecycle Facility/Site Summary Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055). Accessed May 2016 at: /Detail/ Claremont, City of General Plan. Available online at: Claremont, City of Sustainable City Plan. October Claremont, City of, City Parks Accessed April 2016 at: Claremont, City of, Fire Services Accessed April 2016 at: living/fire-department Claremont, City of, Municipal Code. Accessed April 2016 at: Construction Testing & Engineering, South, Inc Geotechnical Investigation [for the] Proposed Keck Graduate Institute Mixed Use Student Housing Project, 517 Wharton Drive, Claremont California. September 26, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment. May Golden State Water Company (GSWC) Urban Water Management Plan 2010, Claremont. September Hanover Pacific, LLC Student Housing Project on the Campus of Keck Graduate Institute Memorandum. Date April 29, Keck Graduate Institute (KGI). Parking Management Plan (PMP) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). Traffic and Parking Study [for the] Campus Housing Project for Keck Graduate Institute in the city of Claremont. October KPFF Consulting Engineers. Hydrology and Water Quality [for the] KGI Mixed Use/Student Housing Project, 535 Watson Drive, Claremont CA, September 19, Los Angeles, City of CEQA Thresholds Guidelines. Access at: ide% pdf Los Angeles, City of. Barlow Hospital Replacement and Master Plan Project, Draft EIR. April LSA Associates, Inc Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report [for the] Melrose Triangle City of West Hollywood. January SCH No Final EIR Adopted August 152

157 18, Accessed Noise Section at: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Azusa to Montclair (Metro Extension) Final Environmental Impact Report. Volume 1: Final EIR. SCH No February National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) NPS Focus Digital Asset Search. Accessed May 2016 at: Pomona College Pomona College 2015 Campus Master Plan: Recommendations to the City of Claremont. October Accessed at: Sanberg Group, Inc Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APN #s and , Keck Graduate Institute (KGI) Campus Housing, 517 and 535 Watson Drive, 555 Arrow Highway, Claremont, CA November 16, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County website. p. Accessed May, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan, Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future. Available online: SCAG RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction. Available online: on.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, SCAQMD. Revised July, Available at: Accessed April SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan. SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. SCAQMD, Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15: Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds Option Accessed at: SCAQMD AQMD CEQA Handbook. Available at: Accessed April

158 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development The Noise Guidebook. Office of Community Planning and Development. Accessed at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Mapper. Accessed April Utility Systems Science & Software (US 3 ) Wastewater Flow Monitoring Services for Keck Graduate Institute Sewer Study, Claremont, CA 91711, April 20, 2016 through April 28, Persons Contacted Adriana Raza, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Will Serve Program; December 10, Lisa Amaya, Senior Administrative Assistant, Police Department; March 26, 2013 Mark Carnahan, Senior Planner, ; October 17, Shelly Vandervain, Captain, Police Department; June 20,